Why stop at a systems language? Why not assembly? Hell why not raw machine code?
You have to rewrite it for every new processor? Big deal. Llm magic means that cost isn't an issue and a rewrite is just changing a single variable in the docs.
You have to rewrite it for every new processor? Big deal. Llm magic means that cost isn't an issue and a rewrite is just changing a single variable in the docs.
But, if you read the article, the reasons given for rust in particular are reasonable, and not matched by assembly or machine code.
But go is memory managed and statically typed, and, obviously, assembly language or pure binary opcodes aren't.
The article certainly isn't perfect, but the thesis wasn't just that "Hey, LLMs can now write stuff for us in more efficient languages."
It was (rightly or wrongly) that LLMs can let us more easily use more complicated languages that both go faster and do more checking than most dynamic languages.