Modern idiomatic JavaScript and TypeScript encourage "clever" code. The latter also has a very complicated type system, which, again, is frequently used, especially in .d.ts files for pure JS libraries because JS devs love tricks like functions doing different things based on number and type of arguments. So models learn all that from the training set, but then often can't deal with the complexity they themselves introduce.
Much as I dislike Go, it is indeed probably closer to the ideal language for the LLM. But I suspect that we need to dial it down even further, e.g. no type inference whatsoever (so no := etc). In fact I wonder if forcing the model to spell out the type of every subexpression as a type assertion might be beneficial due to the way LLMs work, for the same reason why prompting for explicit chain-of-thought improves outputs even with models not specifically trained to produce CoT. In the similar vein, it could require fully qualified names for all library functions etc. But it also needs to have fewer footguns, which Go has aplenty - possible to ignore error returns, concurrency is unsafe etc. I suspect message passing a la Erlang might be the best bet there but this is just a gut feel.
Of course, the problem with any hypothetical new PL optimized for LLMs is that there's no training data for it. To some extent this can be mitigated by mechanically converting existing code - e.g. mandatory fully qualified names and explicit type assertions for subexpressions could be easily bolted onto any existing statically typed language.
Much as I dislike Go, it is indeed probably closer to the ideal language for the LLM. But I suspect that we need to dial it down even further, e.g. no type inference whatsoever (so no := etc). In fact I wonder if forcing the model to spell out the type of every subexpression as a type assertion might be beneficial due to the way LLMs work, for the same reason why prompting for explicit chain-of-thought improves outputs even with models not specifically trained to produce CoT. In the similar vein, it could require fully qualified names for all library functions etc. But it also needs to have fewer footguns, which Go has aplenty - possible to ignore error returns, concurrency is unsafe etc. I suspect message passing a la Erlang might be the best bet there but this is just a gut feel.
Of course, the problem with any hypothetical new PL optimized for LLMs is that there's no training data for it. To some extent this can be mitigated by mechanically converting existing code - e.g. mandatory fully qualified names and explicit type assertions for subexpressions could be easily bolted onto any existing statically typed language.