|
| ▲ | vorticalbox 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| True but if the reviewer doesn’t have an intimate understanding of rust then the fact it can’t “slop” is no different than unreadable slop. Go is simple, no “magic” marcos or meta programming even with just a little programming in any language it’s not hard to understand what the go code is doing. |
| |
| ▲ | greenavocado 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's simply not true. I wrote a piece of software in Rust that is non-trivial, robust, 50k lines of code, and 100% LLM generated, used by four people productively with only one or two minor bugs in the past two man-months | | |
| ▲ | vorticalbox 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | question did you review the code or did you test it was working? these are different things. and if you did review it, could an engineer without deep Rust experience have reviewed it just as effectively? I have no doubt that you can get a LLM to write working bug free code in any language but that is not the topic of the article or my comment. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | threethirtytwo 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| This is true. I'd like metrics on this though. It could be that LLMs find go easier so they end up writing better code and rarely hitting static errors like a human would in rust. IT could be through scientific measurements that the benefits of static checking could be negligible for LLMs. No way to know until someone does the science on this. Until then it's just people saying that more static checking is better. But I do think, anecdotally, python is horrible for LLMs. |
| |
