You missed the other take, with AI assisted coding, you can stay in C++, as it will take care everything is coded with enough care.
Or why bother with Rust, when the LLM gets to generate C++ code with best practices.
While I like Rust, I think AI as the next abstraction step in programming has kind of taken its relevance away, when computer assisted programming is part of the workflow.
Strange. I wouldn’t trust the output of a coding agent and I would want stronger review of its output. If it passes a strict compiler that gives me more confidence than if it passed a lax one.
But sure, if you trust it to have written C++ to a higher standard than the experts, then go for it.
It is what it is, I accept that’s where the industry is heading.
But if I have to produce reams of code I’d much rather have it be reviewed by rustc than clang. rustc may take longer to satisfy, but it’ll be worth it because I won’t be responsible for horrors in production.
You’re happy to be responsible for buffer overflows written by an LLM? I’m not, which is why I prefer a language where it’s not possible.
Even reviewing human written C++ is difficult. Android has had 20 years to figure it out and they couldn’t find a way to reduce the number of vulnerabilities they introduced in carefully crafted C++ code. I shudder to think how many more they would have introduced if they had vibe coded it.
Or why bother with Rust, when the LLM gets to generate C++ code with best practices.
While I like Rust, I think AI as the next abstraction step in programming has kind of taken its relevance away, when computer assisted programming is part of the workflow.