4 ms·
You're going to pretty hard pressed to do Rust better than Rust. There's minimal opportunity with lifetime annotations. I'm sure very small options elsewhere,
by onlyrealcuzzo 8mo ago
You're going to pretty hard pressed to do Rust better than Rust.
There's minimal opportunity with lifetime annotations. I'm sure very small options elsewhere, too.
The idea of replacing Rust with natural language seems insane. Maybe I'm being naive, but I can't see why or how it could possibly be useful.
Rust is simply Chinese unless you understand what it's doing. If you translate it to natural language, it's still gibberish, unless you understand what it does and why first. In which case, the syntax is nearly infinitely more expressive than natural language.
That's literally the point of the language, and it wasn't built by morons!
- manuelabeledo 8mo agoI believe the author thinks of this problem in terms of “the LLM will figure it out”, i.e. it will be trained on enough code that compiles, that the LLM just needs to put the functional blocks together. Which might work to a degree with languages like JavaScript.
- onlyrealcuzzo 8mo agoThat point makes no sense. If the LLM is not perfect at scale - extraordinarily unlikely that it would be - then it becomes relevant to understand the actual language. That's either natural language that's supposed to somehow be debuggable - or it's a language like Rust - which actually is.