Any application that can be written in a system language, eventually will be
1–10 of 132 posts
Re: Any application that can be written in a system language, eventually will be
#2Re: Any application that can be written in a system language, eventually will be
#3In particular, an error on one line may force you to change a large part of your code. As a beginner this can be intimidating ("do I really need to change everything that uses this struct to use a borrow instead of ownership? will that cause errors elsewhere?") and I found that induced analysis paralysis in me. Talking to an LLM about my options gave me the confidence to do a big change.
Re: Any application that can be written in a system language, eventually will be
#4This is my second attempt learning Rust and I have found that LLMs are a game-changer. They are really good at proposing ways to deal with borrow-checker problems that are very difficult to diagnose as a Rust beginner. In particular, an error on one line may force you to change a large part of your code. As a beginner this can be intimidating ("do I really need to change everything that uses this struct to use a borr…
Re: Any application that can be written in a system language, eventually will be
#5This is my second attempt learning Rust and I have found that LLMs are a game-changer. They are really good at proposing ways to deal with borrow-checker problems that are very difficult to diagnose as a Rust beginner. In particular, an error on one line may force you to change a large part of your code. As a beginner this can be intimidating ("do I really need to change everything that uses this struct to use a borr…
EDIT: typo fixed, thx
Re: Any application that can be written in a system language, eventually will be
#6This is my second attempt learning Rust and I have found that LLMs are a game-changer. They are really good at proposing ways to deal with borrow-checker problems that are very difficult to diagnose as a Rust beginner. In particular, an error on one line may force you to change a large part of your code. As a beginner this can be intimidating ("do I really need to change everything that uses this struct to use a borr…
I don't see why it shouldn't be even more automated than that, with LLM ideas tested automatically by differential testing of components against the previous implementation. EDIT: typo fixed, thx
> I don't see why it *shouldn't be even more automated
In my particular case, I'm learning so having an LLM write the whole thing for me defeats the point. The LLM is a very patient (and sometimes unreliable) mentor.
Re: Any application that can be written in a system language, eventually will be
#7This is my second attempt learning Rust and I have found that LLMs are a game-changer. They are really good at proposing ways to deal with borrow-checker problems that are very difficult to diagnose as a Rust beginner. In particular, an error on one line may force you to change a large part of your code. As a beginner this can be intimidating ("do I really need to change everything that uses this struct to use a borr…
I've noticed the same pattern learning other things. Having an on-demand tutor that can see your exact code changes the learning curve. You still have to do the work, but you get unstuck faster.
Re: Any application that can be written in a system language, eventually will be
#8This is my second attempt learning Rust and I have found that LLMs are a game-changer. They are really good at proposing ways to deal with borrow-checker problems that are very difficult to diagnose as a Rust beginner. In particular, an error on one line may force you to change a large part of your code. As a beginner this can be intimidating ("do I really need to change everything that uses this struct to use a borr…
I don't see why it shouldn't be even more automated than that, with LLM ideas tested automatically by differential testing of components against the previous implementation. EDIT: typo fixed, thx
I.e. the parent is speaking in the context of learning, not in the context of producing something that appears to work.
Re: Any application that can be written in a system language, eventually will be
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see why it shouldn't be even more automated than that, with LLM ideas tested automatically by differential testing of components against the previous implementation. EDIT: typo fixed, thx
Defining tests that test for the right things requires an understanding of the problem space, just as writing the code yourself in the first place does. It's a catch-22. Using LLMs in that context would be pointless (unless you're writing short-lived one-off garbage on purpose). I.e. the parent is speaking in the context of learning, not in the context of producing something that appears to work.