← Back to context

Comment by nialv7

1 day ago

But the author isn't saying we should program in any of these memory safe languages. The author is saying why don't we vibe code in C, or even assembly.

4 comments

nialv7

Reply
zdragnar  1 day ago

This thread moved the conversation away from the posted article quite a few messages ago.

First, Rust has lots of checks that C and assembly don't, and AI benefits from those checks. Then, a post about those checks are related to memory safety, not logic errors. Then, a post about whether that's a helpful comment. Finally, me pointing out that checks regarding types and memory errors aren't unique to Rust and there's tons of languages that could benefit.

Since you want to bring it back to the original article, here's a quote from the author:

    Is C the ideal language for vibe coding? I think I could mount an argument for why it is not, but surely Rust is even less ideal. To say nothing of Haskell, or OCaml, or even Python. All of these languages, after all, are for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.

It would seem that the author fundamentally misunderstand significant reasons for many of the languages he mentions to be the way that they are.

  • 9rx  1 day ago

    > Rust has lots of checks that C and assembly don't, and AI benefits from those checks.

    Fil-C gets you close in the case of C, but we can ignore it because, of course, F* has significantly more checks than Rust, and AI benefits from those checks. Choosing Rust would be as ridiculous as choosing C if that was your motivation.

    But if you don't find the need for those checks in order to consider Rust, why not C or even assembly instead?