> But here's a question: `rustc` often gives _actionable_ advice - how far can can you get just following that advice? You can make `rustc` happy by following s

> But here's a question: `rustc` often gives _actionable_ advice - how far can can you get just following that advice? You can make `rustc` happy by following suggestions, but may end up puzzled as to the reasons for the changes it suggests. Not-crazy suggestion: add a `--why` option to rustc that doesn't just shout (helpful) error messages at you but actually explains the architectural theory of why the error is occurring and provides documentation links that help outline the canonical "right way" to do whatever it is you're trying to do. The idea being that rustc applies a ton of heuristics and intelligence (perhaps by analyzing nearby code) to guess what your high-level goal is. There have been a couple of "programming helper" AI-type apps float past here recentlyish; that's what I'm getting at. The reasons I think this would be a good idea is that a) this would be really really hard to get right, but AI R&D is pretty much at the point where you could put something like this together and build it into the compiler and pull it off really well b) rust seems to have a ton of energy behind it so if any language was going to implement this, it looks like rust has a fighting chance to actually get it done c) rust hasn't stabilized yet so _now_ is exactly the time to fold something like this in. it would need to be integrated as early as possible as a bolt-on afterthought would never work the same way