Only if you are dependent on Ai, because you cannot program yourself or don’t want to.

!(r.SendNow || r.DryRun) requires you to read the entire statement and then negate the result. While !r.SendNow && !r.DryRun each part of the statement stands on its own and is negated for themselves. That is how I read. I like the Ai suggestion more, because that is how I would write it myself. What I like about it is, that the negation of is right there with the variable. It gets more important, the more you divide sub-expressions in multiple lines.

I take it.

It’s actually the first time I used to do Ai assisted unit test creation. There were multiple iterations and sometimes it never worked well. And the most important part is, as you say, think through and read every single test case and edit or replace if necessary. Some tests are really stupid, especially stuff that is already encoded in the type system through Rust. I mean you still need a head for revision and know what you want to do.

I still wonder if I should have just gave it the function signature without the inner workings of the function. That’s an approach I want to explore next time. I really enjoyed working with it for the tests, because writing tests is very time consuming. Although I am not much of test guy, so maybe the results aren’t that good anyway.

Edit: In about 250 unit tests (which does not cover all functions sadly) for a cli json based tool, several bugs were found thanks to this approach. I wouldn’t have done it manually.

I like writing code myself, its a process I enjoy. If the LLM write it for me, then I would only do the worse part of the job: debugging. Also for many people let the Ai write code means less understanding. Otherwise you could have written it yourself. However there are things when the Ai is helpful, especially for writing tests in a restrictive language such as Rust. People forget that writing the code is one part of the job, the other is to depend on it, debug and build other stuff on top.

Well that wasn’t meant to be too serious. You are surely aware of the situation that Haskell is not often used language in production. And a huge project you are doing with lot of Haskell is definitely something special.

he’s very familiar with C and C++. In his associated writeup on his Gopher page (link though Floodgap) [jns] simply declares it’s a language he’s quite fond of, which is reason enough of us.

So there are no technical reasons to do so. Its totally understandable to like and use a language for personal feelings. But it kinda feels like unnecessary complicated. So this should be done as a hobby project on something that is not important in my opinion.

Make it in Haskell if you want impress me.

What’s the point of a read only wiki? I don’t get it. Or is this about the source code, not the user data / articles?

I am a European who grew up with the German layout. For programming, its a disaster. Even back in 2006ish or so when I learned about AutoHotkey, I started using the US keyboard layout. After some time I switched entirely to the US layout. But recently, just a few years ago I found out there is a hybrid layout which is basically US, but with additional shortcuts to use my German characters (it shows up as this in KDE): German (US)

Yeah, I noticed too it does not work well. After some other comments, I tested it on more stuff where I know for a fact it was written by human (myself). And it even gave me over 40% ai probability. It’s entirely possible it does that by design, because they have a functionality to obfuscate text for other Ai to detect.

I need to stop talking and posting about these tools, they are as bad as Ai can get.

Yeah, looks like this tool is bullshit too. I have similar results with my own written text too. I will edit my text and stop posting about this tool.

@syklemil@discuss.tchncs.de Just for curiosity I checked the text with an Ai detector. Mind you, this is not proof for or against, as I don’t take these tools too serious too. They are Ai tools themselves.

https://www.scribbr.com/ai-detector/ says 0% likely is written by Ai.

https://stealthwriter.ai/ says 93% is written by Ai. This tool also shows the passages it thinks it is.

Remember, this is not a proof. But it looks suspicious to me. Test the services with text you know for a fact it is written by human (like yourself). And test is with some text you know for a fact it is output by an Ai (maybe directly ask an Ai for some text). In example the second tool gives me 48% written by Ai, for some text from my own blog post.

i find this one sentence for each paragraph to be hard to read as a blog post.

Edit: Looks like the tool I linked is total bogus.

I’ve copied the text and put it into a tool that tries to find out if its written by an Ai (using an Ai model themselves off course, the irony). Here is one such: https://stealthwriter.ai/

> About 66% of the content is likely human-written, while 34% appears AI-generated.

The tool also has the ability trying to obfuscate or rewrite passages that should avoid being detected by such a tool themselves. So it is possible this article was written by an Ai model, a tool to obfuscate was used and them maybe a human edited and rephrased stuff. I can imagine this being part of the publishing process. Complete assumption by me here.

I try to compile Rust code from someone who wants to compile Rust CLI tool, so it is connected to Rust. Well, if nobody can give advice how to document this better… So much for those who downvote without giving helpful answers (i don’t care about the votes, downvotes doesn’t show up for me anyway, I was just asking for advice, its disappointing behavior or community members). I asked the local Ai I have installed on. Usually I avoid that when possible, but it actually gave me helpful response.

Turns out, one does not have to install Visual Studio itself and an account is not needed. Downloading and installing the Dev Tools without an account works from https://visualstudio.microsoft.com/visual-cpp-build-tools/ . I just tested this in the VM. Therefore I will need to overhaul the entire Installation part and rewrite it cleanly from scratch, to simplify it. I should have asked the ai instead the community…

Just an addition, as I did not found it on the page through Firefox search: A collection of notable Rust blog posts

But why?

The point of many colors is not that everything is important, but showing relationship and the “type” of code. I don’t think the less colored version is better (or worse) readable. It’s a preference.

I’ve been trying to understand one of the latest AI coding buzzword: Spec-driven development (SDD).

writing a “spec” before writing code with AI

The spec becomes the source of truth for the human and the AI.

In other words, the specs are vibe coded and then this vibe coded spec is used to vibe code a program. How exciting.

Rust, is that you?