If you're going to vibe code, why not do it in C?

Post by swatcoder » Tue, Dec 09, 2025, 6:26 PM UTC

jcelerier wrote: post #47

gitremote wrote: post #33

Software development jobs must be very diverse if even this anti-vibe-coding guy thinks AI coding definitely makes developers more productive. In my work, the bigger bottleneck to productivity is that very few people can correctly articulate requirements. I work in backend, API development, which is completely different from fullstack development with backend development. If you ask PMs about backend requirements, th…

To be honest I've never worked in an environment that seemed too complex. On my side my primary blocker is writing code. I have an unending list of features, protocols, experiments, etc. to implement, and so far the main limit was the time necessary to actually write the damn code.

Post by nialv7 » Tue, Dec 09, 2025, 6:27 PM UTC

zdragnar wrote: post #69

loeg wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rust doesn't prevent programs from having logic errors. Like everything around Rust, this has been discussed ad nauseam. Preventing memory safety bugs has a meaningful impact in reducing CVEs, even if it has no impact on logic bugs. (Which: I think you could argue the flexible and expressive type system helps with. But for the sake of this argument, let's say it provides no benefits.)

It isn't like rust is the only language with memory safety; plenty of high level languages don't let you fiddle with memory bits in a way that would be unsafe. The tradeoff is that they typically come with garbage collectors. If the only concern is "can an LLM write code in this language without memory errors" then there's plenty of reasons to choose a language other than Rust.

Post by doug_durham » Tue, Dec 09, 2025, 6:43 PM UTC

raphlinus wrote: post #71

There's a straightforward answer to the "why not" question: because it will result in codebases with the same kind of memory unsafety and vulnerability as existing C code. If an LLM is in fact capable of generating code free of memory safety errors, then it's certainly also capable of writing the Rust types that guarantee this and are checkable. We could go even further and have automated generation of proofs, either…

Post by iberator » Tue, Dec 09, 2025, 6:49 PM UTC

jcelerier wrote: post #47

gitremote wrote: post #33

Software development jobs must be very diverse if even this anti-vibe-coding guy thinks AI coding definitely makes developers more productive. In my work, the bigger bottleneck to productivity is that very few people can correctly articulate requirements. I work in backend, API development, which is completely different from fullstack development with backend development. If you ask PMs about backend requirements, th…

To be honest I've never worked in an environment that seemed too complex. On my side my primary blocker is writing code. I have an unending list of features, protocols, experiments, etc. to implement, and so far the main limit was the time necessary to actually write the damn code.

Post by sophacles » Tue, Dec 09, 2025, 6:52 PM UTC

jmull wrote: post #49

stared wrote: post #5

There was a recent discussion, “Why AI Needs Hard Rules, Not Vibe Checks” ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46152838 ). We need as many checks as possible - and ideally ones that come for free (e.g., guaranteed by types, lifetimes, etc.) - which is why Rust might be the language for vibe coding. Without checks and feedback, LLMs can easily generate unsafe code. So even if they can generate C or Assembly that wor…

Rust doesn't prevent programs from having logic errors. If LLMs produce code riddled with bugs in one language it will do in other languages as well. Rust isn't going to save you.