If a software engineer can suprivise 1 million lines of code being written a month, then there is no job for software engineers anymore. A single person can't verify that much code in a month, so writing code would no longer be an important skill.

The difficulty here isn't the Rust (since literally anything can be rewritten in Rust with more or less difficulty); the difficulty here is the Ai.

Yeah, at that point you don't need a software engineer at all. You just need a manager to write the correct prompt. The engineer can't read all the code.

How is that worse than you, unwilling to admit that Rust is undefined completely?

It's the kind of death you expect to see in Grand Theft Auto.

A CEO was looking for a friend?

Breaking code that works is job security. "don't break code that works" is something that most of the programming world has given up on, unfortunately (along with KISS).

I don't think that's true, unless you insist on immutability. In particular, it IS possible to do safe IO, most languages can handle it. For Rust, it's just a matter of defining the proper rules that make IO safe, and then enforcing them.

Good point, I should have more compassion for people like that

Like this: https://it.slashdot.org/story/...

I lived through the goto era and I'm not sure it's a good thing.

That's not even the problem, the biggest problem is it doesn't reach its own goals. You should be able to use Rust without using Unsafe, otherwise it doesn't solve the problem it claims to solve (or rather, it solves them in a "good enough" fashion, the same as smart pointers in C++ and there's no reason to switch from one to the other).

It's pretty clear you're lying.

After a few failures, I generally give up using an LLM and look elsewhere.

Always P=NP is true for some subset of the problem.

Every time I see someone talking about AI being a junior developer, I am quite certain they have never worked with a junior developer.