> Also, my personal experience with LLMs fixing compilation errors is: when it works, it works great. But when it doesn't, it's so clueless and lost that it's a

> Also, my personal experience with LLMs fixing compilation errors is: when it works, it works great. But when it doesn't, it's so clueless and lost that it's a complete waste of time to employ LLM in the first place -- you are much better off debugging the code yourself using old fashioned method. Or just 'learning the Rust syntax' and standard library? As you said, LLMs are unpredictable in their output and will can generate functions that don't exist and incorrect code as you use more advanced features, wasting more time than it saves if you don't know the language well enough. I guess those coming from dynamically typed languages are having a very hard time in getting used to strongly typed languages and then struggle with the basic syntax of say, Rust or C++. Looking at this AI hype with vibe-coding/debugging and LLMs, it just favours throwing code on the wall with a lack of understanding as to what it does after it compiles. This is why many candidates won't ever do Leetcode with Rust in a real interview.