I'm not sure if this is advanced trolling at this point.

This is redefining the cutting edge of trolling.

I think the term is "frontier trolling".

I'll one up you: at this point I'm becoming pretty sure that this is a person who actually hates LLMs, who is trying to poison the well by trying to give other people reasons to hate LLMs too.

I envy your optimism. The truth is that humans are generally stupider and more craven than you have apparently even begun to conceive.

Is the. AI bubble just biolliinaires larping about their favorite dystopuan scifi?

>A pity. Saw Zig as something rising but with this kind of toxicity, no thanks.

Don't get me wrong, it is a bit toxic. However, I feel like taking one comment in a larger article and blowing it up out of proportion is just as toxic.

> blowing it up out of proportion is just as toxic

One person decided that something wasn't for them. How is that in the same league as someone in a leadership position being unprofessional?

I personally don't care too much for hierarchies, so I didn't factor this in. You can be toxic at any level.

> You can be toxic at any level

And yet the context is extremely important.

> I didn't factor this in

That's how you get to false equivalencies.

>That's how you get to false equivalencies.

No, you're just putting something into it which doesn't matter to me. Not a false equivalency.

You said:

> blowing it up out of proportion is just as toxic

Making a false equivalency of the supposed toxicity of the commenter's post and the toxicity displayed in the article.

You can just take the L; you don't have to be performatively obtuse about it.

They are blasting the product tbf. The people part is a small part of it. And apparently at least distracting the HN Community from their point.

Which is exactly why to cut it out. If you put salt in my cup of tea, I’m gonna notice and it’s gonna ruin the drink.

Microsoft poured salt into your cup years ago, you just did not notice.

If you put more salt into this rather thinly-stretched metaphorical cup when telling me what Microsoft did you are not going to endear yourself to me. Why muddy your message?

>When you write Rust code without lifetimes and trait bounds and nested types, the language looks like Ruby lite.

And once you learn a few idioms this is mostly the default.

>You get memory safety. That's about it for Security

Not true, you get one of the strongest and most expressive type systems out there.

One example are the mutability guarantees which are stronger than in any other language. In C++ with const you say "I'm not going to modify this". In Rust with &mut you're saying "Nobody else is going to modify this." This is 100x more powerful, because you can guarantee nobody messes with the values you borrow. That's one very common issue in efficient C++ code that is unfixable.

Sum types (enum with value) enable designing with types in a way otherwise only doable in other ML-based languages. Derive macros make it easy to use as well since you can skip the boilerplate.

Integers of different sizes need explicit casting, another common source of bugs.

Macros are evaluated as part of the AST. A lot safer than text substitution.

Further the borrow checker helps with enabling compile time checking of concurrency.

The list goes on, but nobody that has tried Rust properly can say that it only helps prevent memory safety issues. If that's your view, you just showed that you didn't even try.

>like an animal with no higher order thinking.

In Germany I see far fewer abandoned shopping carts than in America.

Bin ifTrue

It was bad before AI. Not saying AI vibe code is great, just that poor engineering culture existed before AI.

The only important question.

Yeah, I was going to say, if anybody with distributed systems knowledge actually thought about this code, it wouldn't have happened.

If you added model checking to it you could have prevented it though, because people that know how to program a model checking program, will see the error right away.