Go reads fine whether the architecture is good or bad, and I couldn't tell the difference until I was in trouble. Rust is harder to read but harder to misuse. The borrow checker would have caught that data race at compile time. I've also just written more Rust. That familiarity matters separately.

+1 on Open 4.7 involving the user a lot more. Rn I'm trying to get to a state where I can codify my design + decision preferences as agents personas and push myself out of the dev loop.

▲

ok_dad an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Buddy that k10s code was never good. Go vs Rust is not the issue here, it’s the fact the project was vibe coded without reading anything. It’s hilarious to even think that a god model was caused by anything other than someone who let the bot choose too much.

Good architecture in any language is obvious to someone who is experienced and cares.

Go is actually great for bots to write if you’re actually thinking.

▲

binyu 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Gotcha, that implies you are going to read the code that the AI produces anyways.

> Go reads fine whether the architecture is good or bad

Were you reading the Golang code all along and got fooled or did you review it after it failed? Sorry I admit I didn't read the whole article.

▲

williamstein 5 hours ago | parent [-]

He was NOT reading the code: "For 7 months I'd been prompting and shipping without ever sitting down and actually reading the code Claude wrote."

	▲	binyu 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Right, thank you. Personally I think reading all the code that the AI produces is impossible and kind of defeats the purpose of using it. The key is to devise a structured way to interact with it (skills and similar) and use extensive testing along the way to verify the work at all steps.