Zakis1

What expectations do I have? They used one AI model and then wrote a blog post as if they have an informed opinion. It has no credibility whatsoever, why would I listen to anyone's opinion who hasn't done proper research.

It's like playing one video game and then claiming all video games are boring and have bad gameplay and stories.

Ryanair is Europe's most popular budget airline. If I fly with them once can I write a blog post now calling all air travel miserable?

My point is, there is a monumental difference between flying Ryanair and Emirates First Class for example.

Ah yes I'm an AI bro because I said the author must do thorough testing before coming to a conclusion about LLM's.

Looking forward to the authors next blog post on how after driving one car they find that all cars are slow and uncomfortable. Then the follow up after trying one phone and that all phones have bad cameras and battery life.

> Uses only DeepSeek and comes to the conclusion that LLM's are bad at coding?

Why not use actual frontier models, and you know do some real research, before writing a blog post?

No you cannot get a static analysis tool to guarantee 97% of zig code was safe. Well, you can - the tool is called the borrow checker.

Do you know what's infinitely cheaper and faster than an LLM running nightly reviews of all of the code and infact mathematically provable that the code (and any new code) is memory safe? It's called the borrow checker.

Yikes, the majority of this blog post is saying basically "skill issue" and "Jarred bad engineer", but I think that hurts Zig far more than Andrew realises.

If Bun, a disaster of engineering apparently, simply just switches to Rust and all of their issues magically disappear... then the Rust Vs Zig war is over before it started right?

But how would you verify that the agents have written memory safe code? Rust's borrowchecker is a lot faster and actually verifiably safe compared to asking an LLM to fix the safety issues that the Zig version had.

The stability gains are a direct language concern as mentioned throughout the article.

Agree, the claim "secure because Rust" is wrong. But "more secure than if it were written in an unsafe language" is probably going to be true most of the time.

Agreed unfortunately, if Zigs whole selling point is meant to be a "nicer C" (and a much nicer DX than Rust because no fighting the borrow checker etc) - does that really matter in a world where an LLM is writing the code? I am not going to be fighting the borrow checker, the LLM is.

And as always, the response you'll hear is: but AI sucks/hallucinates/could never replace me etc... Just look at the progress LLM'S have made in the past few years, and extrapolate that to the next 10 or 20 years. I don't see how Zig makes sense if this is the trajectory the industry is going.

I completely agree. Zig has a nicer DX no doubt - no fighting the borrow checker etc. But if you are are writing software for other people they don't care about how nice your developer experience is, they only want the software to work correctly - and how can you guarantee that the software you wrote does what you expect it to do if it's not memory safe?

It's alarming how people instantly jump to conclusions that Bun is now "AI slop".

Bun has been almost entirely worked on by LLM's for ~6 months now, long before the Rust re-write (source: https://x.com/jarredsumner/status/2054525268296118363). It already has been proven that LLM's can maintain such codebases.

> When you rewrite a project in another language, it's for engineers to be able to maintain and further develop the project better

I don't think that is the case here. Bun is pretty much using AI to write all of it's code, with a human reviewing it. Zig exists as a language to provide a nice DX over C and Rust, not to be memory safe. If you are using an LLM to generate code, the DX benefits are removed and so then why would you ever choose Zig over Rust?