In my unqualified opinion, LLMs would do better at niche languages or even specific versions of mainstream languages, as well as niche frameworks, if they were better at consultig the documentation for the language or framework, for example, the user could give the LLM a link to the docs or an offline copy, and the LLM would prioritise the docs over the pretrained code. Currently this is not feasible because 1. limited context is shared with the actual code, 2. RAG is one-way injection i to the LLM, the LLM usually wouldn't "ask for a specific docs page" even if they probably should.

At some point our understanding of fundamental reality will be limited not by how much the physicists have uncovered but by how many years of university it would take to explain it. In the end each of us only has one lifetime.

Comments that explain the intent, rather than implementation, are the more useful kind. And when intent doesn't match the actual code, that's a good hint - it might be why the code doesn't work.

Ask stupid questions, receive stupid answers.

What does "speculative" mean in this case? I understand it as CPU-level speculative execution a.k.a. branch mis-prediction, but that shouldn't have any real-world effects (or else we'd have segfaults all the time due to executing code that didn't really happen)