Well, I'm still not quite proficient with Rust, so maybe my feelings are misguided, but the whole situation seems really terrifying to me.
Well, I'm still not quite proficient with Rust, so maybe my feelings are misguided, but the whole situation seems really terrifying to me. Like, way too terrifying than that we could just make a point about "not doing like that again" and calmly move on to the 1.0. After all, why Rust? Because we're all tired of problems with C++ and stuff. And the point isn't really about making a language that would be safe "as often as possible", it would be quite terrible goal, actually. The point is, I believe, to make it nearly impossible to write unsafe code accidentally , without even noticing it. And again, maybe it's just me, but what I understood from that post is totally non-intuitive to me. I don't really understand what are the guidelines and how many more gotchas like that there could be. "Not to mess with unsafe code" is not really good guideline, because it turns out that it can be not quite obvious that the code is unsafe.
Posted by krick on Apr 27, 2015, 4:22 PM
Tags
Related issues
- The biggest problem with having an LLM do this, from what I've observed of at least frontier models, is that the way they are trained...
- The biggest problem with MOND is that it was hand-crafted with additional parameters simply to fit the data.
- (My comment is about detached houses).
- The biggest problem with this is that I can't run my company's own internal benchmarks against this API, because they will be trained int...
- > steer Claude away from over-engineering parts of the system in response to hypothetical concerns.
- Why is there no comparison with FLUX 3 Image?
Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.7,000 issues0 comments
hackernews (Other)
The biggest problem with having an LLM do this, from what I've observed of at least frontier models, is that the way they are trained...
The biggest problem with MOND is that it was hand-crafted with additional parameters simply to fit the data.
(My comment is about detached houses).
The biggest problem with this is that I can't run my company's own internal benchmarks against this API, because they will be trained int...
> steer Claude away from over-engineering parts of the system in response to hypothetical concerns.
Why is there no comparison with FLUX 3 Image?
> our Git monorepo was developing an annoying problem Sentences like this are so common from people using monorepos that I am convinced ...
Why is there no contact form?
Well, I'm still not quite proficient with Rust, so maybe my feelings are misguided, but the whole situation seems really terrifying to me.
Well, I'm still not quite proficient with Rust, so maybe my feelings are misguided, but the whole situation seems really terrifying to me. Like, way too terrifying than that we could just make a point about "not doing like that again" and calmly move on to the 1.0. After all, why Rust? Because we're all tired of problems with C++ and stuff. And the point isn't really about making a language that would be safe "as often as possible", it would be quite terrible goal, actually. The point is, I believe, to make it nearly impossible to write unsafe code accidentally , without even noticing it. And again, maybe it's just me, but what I understood from that post is totally non-intuitive to me. I don't really understand what are the guidelines and how many more gotchas like that there could be. "Not to mess with unsafe code" is not really good guideline, because it turns out that it can be not quite obvious that the code is unsafe.
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Start the discussion.