Do you have any substantial sound metrics and study? I can think of many ways for a Rust program to not remove all fears that it will not do what I intended, doubly so for a vibe-coded Rust program.
You‘ll notice a lot of "I found"s and "my hunch"s and similar in the comments.
There aren’t many comparative benchmarks, and obviously the design of such a benchmark is difficult, but, e.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.09101
In this benchmark, models can correctly solve Rust problems 61% on first pass — A far cry from other languages such as C# (88%) or Elixir (97%, no static typing whatsoever).
First pass is not that important today. All coding agents run until they get it right or hit a limit.
Having to tweak code and compile more often makes things slower, but strict compilers also help you find bugs faster and navigate the codebase. I think the two effects balance out and leave you with safer code in the end. And that's not counting the performance benefits of a compiled language.
Do you have any substantial sound metrics and study? I can think of many ways for a Rust program to not remove all fears that it will not do what I intended, doubly so for a vibe-coded Rust program.
You‘ll notice a lot of "I found"s and "my hunch"s and similar in the comments.
There aren’t many comparative benchmarks, and obviously the design of such a benchmark is difficult, but, e.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.09101
In this benchmark, models can correctly solve Rust problems 61% on first pass — A far cry from other languages such as C# (88%) or Elixir (97%, no static typing whatsoever).
First pass is not that important today. All coding agents run until they get it right or hit a limit.
Having to tweak code and compile more often makes things slower, but strict compilers also help you find bugs faster and navigate the codebase. I think the two effects balance out and leave you with safer code in the end. And that's not counting the performance benefits of a compiled language.