While I applaud creatively exploring new programming language concepts, I find this language confusing. Both the compiler and the flight simulator appear to be vibe coded. The documentation for the language is full of errors or things that don't make sense, and the bootstrap code is a nightmare. It looks like the bootstrap make process requires the bootstrapping code to exist already. Your flight simulator code does not appear to make use of the contract capabilities at all. Am I missing something? Did you actually bootstrap this in another language first? Did the contract capabilities help you during the coding process?
I wonder if this comment thread is going to go better than your "I wrote a DOOM clone in my own programming language" from 9 days ago: https://hackernews.hn/item?id=47932974
Well... actually, it isn't. I'm also writing my own programming language (named "Bau"). I asked Claude to convert a minesweeper game from C to that language. I only gave some example programs in my language and the grammar. This worked on the first try (Claude didn't even have access to the compiler).
I understand what you mean; Claude is a tool and does not have feelings, thats clear to me. But how else can I describe what I did? "Wrote to Claude" has the same issue. Posted, typed, inputed?
“I used Claude to…” “I tried to X using Claude” etc
Anyway doesn’t matter. I’m just kind of whining, I probably should’ve never written that comment in the first place. I think it just sticks out to me unlike like a lot of common parlance in other industries, which can definitely steer into anthropomorphizing, because we’re seeing all kinds of issues with people attributing actual intelligence to these things or just experiencing general psychological distress because of them. Using language that ascribes human characteristics to describe using LLMs just feels weird in that context
Given these machines are the product of massive intentional and increasingly successful efforts to humanize computers, increased anthropomorphization is appropriate.
The behavior/attribute overlap isn't a coincidence or misunderstanding, it is by design.
In case of "ask", that describes our behavior not the machines.
But if a machine is able to recall and use some fact fluently then it makes sense to say it "knows" it. We routinely use words like "know", without any confusion, when talking about simpler lifeforms that are far less human-like than these models.
None of the above means the machine feels pain, is conscious, has a continuous identity, etc. Yet.
Very cool achievement. I gather that the real goal was the making of a complete game rather than high fidelity to actual flight dynamics, but since you used the term "flight simulator" rather than calling it an arcade game, I would gently suggest the following:
- conventional aircraft have direct roll control, not just pitch and yaw
- you can get very far with simple static lift and drag coefficients (though they're not static IRL), and then computing lift/drag forces, and using trigonometry with the bank/pitch/yaw angle to implement a simple rigid body dynamics model
Those two alone will have a big impact on how realistic it feels to fly.
Terry Davis actually did the work. OP had Claude (or some LLM, I assume Claude) write a programming language, then had the LLM write a game in it, then took the credit for it.
Like someone else said in this thread, it's cool that AI can do this, but... meh?
Just so you know, I thought your project was cool, I upvoted it, but I had to retract my upvote after seeing your behavior here in the comments.
If you want to get your work in front of people you will need to learn either to ignore these comments or to respond to criticism in a mature and professional manner. The people who will have the most valuable feedback for you will see this kind of behavior and decide engaging with you is a waste of time, and the only people who will stick around are bullies who enjoy upsetting you.
