61–70 of 756 posts
Why so much negativity? I find these projects interesting for learning purposes and exploring new ways. What’s wrong with that?
Is this another llm-driven rewrite? I wonder how many "unsafe" blocks are in there...
https://github.com/malisper/pgrust/blob/3646a73515a5e4ac7d0b...
https://github.com/malisper/pgrust/blob/3646a73515a5e4ac7d0b...
I start to see a lot of these re-writes that depend on tests to state that its working. But the things that make software like Postgres and SQLite reliable are not mostly the test, but the real world production scars. That's where the reliability comes from, years and years of running in production.
> every time you have a bug or a regression, you write a test that confirms correct behaviour.
What I fail to see in these rewrites however is - what about new bugs introduced by virtue of this rewrite? I mean it'll have to go through its own challenges in real-world scenarios, right?
Why should a developer use this for anything beyond a pet project? Just because it is written in Rust? All these "rewritten in rust" projects only reinforce the idea that a significant part of the rust community consists of software talibans and not of engineers who must deliver something that works and is reliable over time.
I will note that, very funny
I feel like we need to heavily differentiate between a rewrite and an AI rewrite.
It is more and more the future. No human would want to rewrite one technology to another because it is too marginal a gain. AI on the other hand does not give a shit.
Why so much negativity? I find these projects interesting for learning purposes and exploring new ways. What’s wrong with that?
https://github.com/malisper/pgrust/blob/3646a73515a5e4ac7d0b...
https://github.com/malisper/pgrust/blob/3646a73515a5e4ac7d0b...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a project like PostgreSQL, those scars are reflected in unit tests demonstrating that they’re fixed. It’d be hard to pass its test suite and not be as robust as the original.
They ought to, but are they? In https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Developer_FAQ I don't see a requirement to provide a regression test for a bug fix.
I feel like we need to heavily differentiate between a rewrite and an AI rewrite.
Is there any measurable difference in quality between the two, or are you just going on "vibes"? Is there a correlation between the quality of the manually written code and AI generated code driven by the same dev? Such crude takes only cause unnecessary friction. If you have a black box that spits out code, and you are unable to distinguish the quality between a top tier dev and an AI inside the black box, then the…
Aren't you making a strawman argument ? AFAIK this project is not made by an official PostgreSQL core developer, so the entire premise of your argument is invalid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is more and more the future. No human would want to rewrite one technology to another because it is too marginal a gain. AI on the other hand does not give a shit.
You underestimate what people are willing to do just for fun.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI is an average coder. It was trained on all code the code that could be found. Not just code written by genius programmers like Carmack and Bellard. Given that it's average, I'd prefer a human coder above average :)
You haven't been using AI extensively I presume... I've been programming a long time and considered myself among the top in my domain and AI agents using like GPT 5.5 etc. are much better than me.
Ex falso quodlibet
> I've been programming a long time and considered myself among the top in my domain
I am not trying to attack you, but you considered yourself that... I don't know whether you actually were and frankly I don't care.