undefined | Better HN

0 pointsstaticassertion1mo ago0 comments

> Formal specifications and automated testing, will beat any language specific tooling.

I don't understand what you mean. Beat any language at what? Correctness? I don't think that's true at all, but I also don't see how that's relevant, it definitely doesn't address the fact that Rust will virtually always produce faster code than the majority of other languages.

> Hardly much different than dealing with traditional offshoring projects output.

I don't know what you mean here either.

0 comments

pjmlp1mo ago

Any tool that can plug into MLIR and use LLVM, can potentically produce fast code.

Also there is the alternative path to execute code via agents workestration, just like low code tooling work.

I see you never had the fortune to review code provided by cheap offshoring teams.

staticassertionOP1mo ago

> Any tool that can plug into MLIR and use LLVM, can potentically produce fast code.

I guess that's sort of technically true, but not even really? Like, obviously you can compile Python to C and then compile that with clang, but it doesn't make it fast. But even if that were the case, there aren't that many languages that have Rust performance so who cares? "Potentially" is sort of saying we might have a future language that's better, but of course anyone would agree.

> Also there is the alternative path to execute code via agents workestration, just like low code tooling work.

I don't understand how this is relevant.

> I see you never had the fortune to review code provided by cheap offshoring teams.

I just don't understand why you're bringing it up tbh I don't understand the relevance.

pjmlp1mo ago

It doesn't need to win the benchmarks Olympics, it needs to be fast enough.

Plenty of AI based tooling is already trying out this path.

Agents execute actions that in the past would be manually programmed applications, now tasks can be automated given a few mcp endpoints.

LLMs are already at the same output quality of lousy offshoring companies, thus having to fix a bit of it is something that unfortunately many of us are already used with fellow humans.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsstaticassertion1mo ago0 comments

> Formal specifications and automated testing, will beat any language specific tooling.

> Hardly much different than dealing with traditional offshoring projects output.

I don't know what you mean here either.

0 comments

pjmlp1mo ago

Any tool that can plug into MLIR and use LLVM, can potentically produce fast code.

Also there is the alternative path to execute code via agents workestration, just like low code tooling work.

I see you never had the fortune to review code provided by cheap offshoring teams.

staticassertionOP1mo ago

> Any tool that can plug into MLIR and use LLVM, can potentically produce fast code.

> Also there is the alternative path to execute code via agents workestration, just like low code tooling work.

I don't understand how this is relevant.

> I see you never had the fortune to review code provided by cheap offshoring teams.

I just don't understand why you're bringing it up tbh I don't understand the relevance.

pjmlp1mo ago

It doesn't need to win the benchmarks Olympics, it needs to be fast enough.

Plenty of AI based tooling is already trying out this path.

Agents execute actions that in the past would be manually programmed applications, now tasks can be automated given a few mcp endpoints.

LLMs are already at the same output quality of lousy offshoring companies, thus having to fix a bit of it is something that unfortunately many of us are already used with fellow humans.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse