Comment by therepanic
2 days ago
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.
He's a content creator on youtube, a celebrity, not a serious programmer.
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.
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?
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.
Its Safe by Zig standard.
> This is what led to such a high volume of `unsafe` code
Which defeats the purpose of having it in rust.
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.
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.