I have the opposite feeling; I am liking Rust more and more and thinking most of the world's C code should be rewritten. It seems like a sweet spot of enforced memory safety, performance, and human/agent readability.

▲

skor 2 hours ago | parent [-]

why rewrite if you can check for and fix bugs? If you are thinking of AI fixing bugs is less expensive

	▲	tarokun-io 10 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I think Rust (the compiler / borrow checker) kinda finds bugs for you, some of which C/C++ does not. In that sense, rewriting some code in Rust _may_ be cheaper than fixing the existing code. It may also be more welcoming to newer devs, since Rust can be easier to reason about, which is a long-term investment. The borrow checker also helps with AI (as long as you don't let the AI use `unsafe`, or completely control what primitives in your codebase are allowed to use unsafe and never vibe-code any of it) — at least, the agent can't stop until `cargo build` passes. I've also had better experience locally building applications in Rust than in C/C++. `cd ripgrep; cargo install --path .` or `cargo install ripgrep` usually just work, while `make` is usually painful.
	▲	minimaxir 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Memory bugs are unknown unknowns that AI may or may not catch. There's net-present-value in switching to a language where certain types of memory bugs are impossible.
	▲	ImaCake 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I guess ask the bun people why they translated from zig to rust. I think it was essentially because rust guarantees a set of bugs can't exist so over medium to long term timeframes you end up with less technical debt.
	▲	insanitybit 42 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> If you are thinking of AI fixing bugs is less expensive Because I don't think this. A rewrite is cheaper to me.