I agree with your point here. I think that antirez is technically correct in that there is a vast amount of code that will not compile compared to the amount o

I agree with your point here. I think that antirez is technically correct in that there is a vast amount of code that will not compile compared to the amount of code that will compile. So saying '99%' sort of makes sense. But that doesn't capture the fact that of the code that compiles there is a vast amount of code that doesn't do what we want to happen at runtime compared to the code that does do what we want to happen. And after that there is a vast amount of code that doesn't do what we want to happen 100% of the time at runtime compared to the code that only most of the times does what we want to happen at runtime. The interesting thought experiment that came to me when thinking about this was that I would be more likely to trust LLM code in C# or Rust than I would be to trust LLM code in assembly or Ruby. Which makes me wonder ... can LLMs write working Idris or ATS code?