really interesting perspective, as an ex-julia user, can't really argue with the main points. I will say that julia is delightful to use and code in, whereas the article's main point is that rust becomes bearable once you don't have to code yourself, haha.

▲

runarberg a day ago | parent [-]

I‘m not reading TFA because it is AI generated, but I recently returned to Julia to prototype an Artificial Neural Network, and oh boy did I miss this language. If I ever decide to continue with the project I am eventually going to have to rewrite in Rust though (to use the WebAssembly target).

▲

hogehoge51 a day ago | parent [-]

Which version of TFA would you read if it was not generated? would you be comfortable reading the 日本語版 if it was human authored?

▲

runarberg 16 hours ago | parent [-]

As a matter of fact yes. I much prefer to machine translate TFA my self if it sounds interesting enough. But in this case I wouldn’t even do that because the 日本語版 also has this disclaimer:

> 開示: この記事は AI コーディングエージェントと著者が共同で書いた。仕上げにあたっては、本文で説明したのと同じ、人間が検証する工程を通している。

My Japanese is not good enough that I would be able to detect the チャッピー構文 my self, so I thank the authors for putting it there, and saving me the embarrassment of reading something that the authors didn’t even bother to write.

	▲	hogehoge51 15 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I would challenge the asserion that there was no effort in writing it. Basic information theory sugests the bits in content needs to come from somewhere. The more the bits diverge from what is in the training corpus, the more effort the human author needs to apply. Unless people also think there is a special LLM bit that differs from human bits of information. It also suggests a lack of appreciation for the effort in delegating any creative work, to humans or agents, and still getting what you asked for. Regardless of agentic provenance, i liked the chance to read something from Saitama university here. Saitama's a nice place.