In my experience AI and Rust is a mixed bag. The strong compile-time checks mean an agent can verify its work to a much larger extent than many other languages, but the understanding of lifetimes is somewhat weak (although better in Opus 4.5 than earlier models!), and the ecosystem moves fast and fairly often makes breaking changes, meaning that a lot of the training data is obsolete.

▲

antonvs 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The weakness goes beyond lifetimes. In Rust programs with non-trivial type schemas, it can really struggle to get the types right. You see something similar with Haskell. Basically, proving non-trivial correctness properties globally is more difficult than just making a program work.

▲

drrotmos an hour ago | parent | next [-]

True. I do however like the process of working with an AI more in a language like Rust. It's a lot less prone to use ugly hacks to make something that compiles but fail spectacularly at runtime - usually because it can't get the ugly hacks to compile :D

Makes it easier to intercede to steer the AI in the right direction.

▲

fzzzy an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Luckily that's the compiler's job.

	▲	antonvs 32 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, I was referring to writing the proofs, which is very much the human or LLM's job.