3 ms·

To be honest, I share primeagen's view that LLMs handle translating code from one language to another quite well. As far as I know, they converted the languages

To be honest, I share primeagen's view that LLMs handle translating code from one language to another quite well. As far as I know, they converted the languages file by file. This is what led to such a high volume of `unsafe` code. Although, in any case let's be honest, this is causing, and will continue to cause, various issues. I find it easier to live with this point of view.

b40d-48b2-979e 5mo ago
primeagen's view He's a content creator on youtube, a celebrity, not a serious programmer.
- love2read 5mo ago
  Who cares what you think of someone else’s qualifications? It’s just someone quoting someone to help ground their position. What if it was a journalist writing about a security vulnerability then a programmer quoting them, would that count then?
  - jmull 5mo ago
    If it doesn't matter, why did the previous poster mention them? It's pretty clearly a type of argument called an "appeal to authority", where an authority is cited to add credibility to a position. It's usually considered a pretty weak form of argument, but it can be effective. So the credibility of the cited authority is relevant.
- GuB-42 5mo ago
  He was a software engineer at Netflix before turning to content creation. It is also clear watching his videos that he knows his thing. As an experienced programmer myself, I find his commentary to be way too relatable to be just bluff. He may not be Don Knuth, Linus Torvalds, John Carmack or Fabrice Bellard. But he is definitely a serious programmer. That he livestreams doesn't make him less of a programmer.
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
  - b40d-48b2-979e 4mo ago
    It is clear watching his content that he just chases whatever the talk of the day is and chiming in on things he has no knowledge of.
egorfine 5mo ago
> This is what led to such a high volume of `unsafe` code Which defeats the purpose of having it in rust.
- Supermancho 5mo ago
  That is incorrect. Identifying where code is unsafe, is a qualitative improvement. Not guaranteed to be complete, but more complete than a language that does not focus on that concern. Moving forward, the benefits of Rust compound. The concern about AI is orthogonal to the concern about moving to Rust. Now there are 2 versions[1] that can be instrumented, regardless of the misgivings about AI. [1] Bun v1.3.14, released on May 13, 2026 (commit 0d9b296af) and current.
  - egorfine 4mo ago
    I don't think that is exactly incorrect. The whole purpose of Rust is that it makes code safe by default. > Identifying where code is unsafe, is a qualitative improvement Agree. There was no need to merge that slop into master though.
hacker_88 5mo ago
Its Safe by Zig standard.

b40d-48b2-979e 5mo ago

primeagen's view He's a content creator on youtube, a celebrity, not a serious programmer.

love2read 5mo ago
Who cares what you think of someone else’s qualifications? It’s just someone quoting someone to help ground their position. What if it was a journalist writing about a security vulnerability then a programmer quoting them, would that count then?
- jmull 5mo ago
  If it doesn't matter, why did the previous poster mention them? It's pretty clearly a type of argument called an "appeal to authority", where an authority is cited to add credibility to a position. It's usually considered a pretty weak form of argument, but it can be effective. So the credibility of the cited authority is relevant.
GuB-42 5mo ago
He was a software engineer at Netflix before turning to content creation. It is also clear watching his videos that he knows his thing. As an experienced programmer myself, I find his commentary to be way too relatable to be just bluff. He may not be Don Knuth, Linus Torvalds, John Carmack or Fabrice Bellard. But he is definitely a serious programmer. That he livestreams doesn't make him less of a programmer.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- b40d-48b2-979e 4mo ago
  It is clear watching his content that he just chases whatever the talk of the day is and chiming in on things he has no knowledge of.

egorfine 5mo ago

> This is what led to such a high volume of `unsafe` code Which defeats the purpose of having it in rust.

Supermancho 5mo ago
That is incorrect. Identifying where code is unsafe, is a qualitative improvement. Not guaranteed to be complete, but more complete than a language that does not focus on that concern. Moving forward, the benefits of Rust compound. The concern about AI is orthogonal to the concern about moving to Rust. Now there are 2 versions[1] that can be instrumented, regardless of the misgivings about AI. [1] Bun v1.3.14, released on May 13, 2026 (commit 0d9b296af) and current.
- egorfine 4mo ago
  I don't think that is exactly incorrect. The whole purpose of Rust is that it makes code safe by default. > Identifying where code is unsafe, is a qualitative improvement Agree. There was no need to merge that slop into master though.

hacker_88 5mo ago

Its Safe by Zig standard.