> Formal specifications and automated testing, will beat any language specific tooling.

I don't understand what you mean. Beat any language at what? Correctness? I don't think that's true at all, but I also don't see how that's relevant, it definitely doesn't address the fact that Rust will virtually always produce faster code than the majority of other languages.

> Hardly much different than dealing with traditional offshoring projects output.

I don't know what you mean here either.

▲

pjmlp 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Any tool that can plug into MLIR and use LLVM, can potentically produce fast code.

Also there is the alternative path to execute code via agents workestration, just like low code tooling work.

I see you never had the fortune to review code provided by cheap offshoring teams.

▲

staticassertion 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> Any tool that can plug into MLIR and use LLVM, can potentically produce fast code.

I guess that's sort of technically true, but not even really? Like, obviously you can compile Python to C and then compile that with clang, but it doesn't make it fast. But even if that were the case, there aren't that many languages that have Rust performance so who cares? "Potentially" is sort of saying we might have a future language that's better, but of course anyone would agree.

> Also there is the alternative path to execute code via agents workestration, just like low code tooling work.

I don't understand how this is relevant.

> I see you never had the fortune to review code provided by cheap offshoring teams.

I just don't understand why you're bringing it up tbh I don't understand the relevance.

▲

pjmlp 2 hours ago | parent [-]

It doesn't need to win the benchmarks Olympics, it needs to be fast enough.

Plenty of AI based tooling is already trying out this path.

Agents execute actions that in the past would be manually programmed applications, now tasks can be automated given a few mcp endpoints.

LLMs are already at the same output quality of lousy offshoring companies, thus having to fix a bit of it is something that unfortunately many of us are already used with fellow humans.

	▲	staticassertion 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I feel like maybe we're drifting here. You said this: > Well, I am on the provocative side that as AI tooling matures current programming languages will slowly become irrelevant. And I said I disagree because language directly impacts things like performance. And it does, massively. Like, order of magnitude differences are not hard to achieve simply by changing language. You are now saying that things just need to be "fast enough", but I don't get how that's relevant. The point is that a different language will have different tradeoffs, and AI changes some of the calculus there, but language is still a major component of the produced artifact. If you agree that language has major implications on the produced artifact, then we agree. If you don't, then I'll just once again appeal to the massive performance gaps between different languages. I still am not understanding the offshoaring conversation.