This is my second attempt learning Rust and I have found that LLMs are a game-changer. They are really good at proposing ways to deal with borrow-checker problems that are very difficult to diagnose as a Rust beginner.

In particular, an error on one line may force you to change a large part of your code. As a beginner this can be intimidating ("do I really need to change everything that uses this struct to use a borrow instead of ownership? will that cause errors elsewhere?") and I found that induced analysis paralysis in me. Talking to an LLM about my options gave me the confidence to do a big change.

▲

augusteo 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

n_u's point about LLMs as mentors for Rust's borrow checker matches my experience. The error messages are famously helpful, but sometimes you need someone to explain the why.

I've noticed the same pattern learning other things. Having an on-demand tutor that can see your exact code changes the learning curve. You still have to do the work, but you get unstuck faster.

▲

pfdietz 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't see why it shouldn't be even more automated than that, with LLM ideas tested automatically by differential testing of components against the previous implementation.

EDIT: typo fixed, thx

▲

happytoexplain 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Defining tests that test for the right things requires an understanding of the problem space, just as writing the code yourself in the first place does. It's a catch-22. Using LLMs in that context would be pointless (unless you're writing short-lived one-off garbage on purpose).

I.e. the parent is speaking in the context of learning, not in the context of producing something that appears to work.

	▲	pfdietz 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not sure that's true. Bombarding code with huge numbers of randomly generated tests can be highly effective, especially if the tests are curated by examining coverage (and perhaps mutation kills) in the original code.

▲

n_u 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm assuming you meant to type

> I don't see why it *shouldn't be even more automated

In my particular case, I'm learning so having an LLM write the whole thing for me defeats the point. The LLM is a very patient (and sometimes unreliable) mentor.

▲

monero-xmr 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I am old but C is similarly improved by LLM. Build system, boilerplate, syscalls, potential memory leaks. It will be OK when the Linux graybeards die because new people can come up to speed much more quickly

▲

lmm 8 hours ago | parent [-]

The thing is LLM-assisted C is still memory unsafe and almost certainly has undefined behaviour; the LLM might catch some low hanging fruit memory problems but you can never be confident that it's caught them all. So it doesn't really leave you any better off in the ways that matter.

	▲	monero-xmr 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I don’t code C much, is my passion side language. LLM improves my ability to be productive and quickly. Is not a silver bullet, but is an assist