> Agents are much better at satisfying a spec than at inferring one. Give an agent a rich set of types and a function signature, and the space of plausible implementations shrinks a lot, because half the wrong answers won't compile. In a dynamic language the agent has to guess your intent from names and comments, and comments drift out of date in a way that types can't.
Statically typed languages were always much better for reasoning on the codebase in general from the start even before LLMs. Now LLMs have just made that much clearer.
But it isn't about it necessarily "compiling", It's about whether the logic of the program matches the programmer's intent. The program can still compile but produce the incorrect result and Rust doesn't prevent bugs from logic errors and using LLMs won't solve that either.
In fact to the untrained eye you would not even notice the logic error introduced by an AI, even with tests. This is the best example. [0]
rvz•1h ago
Statically typed languages were always much better for reasoning on the codebase in general from the start even before LLMs. Now LLMs have just made that much clearer.
But it isn't about it necessarily "compiling", It's about whether the logic of the program matches the programmer's intent. The program can still compile but produce the incorrect result and Rust doesn't prevent bugs from logic errors and using LLMs won't solve that either.
In fact to the untrained eye you would not even notice the logic error introduced by an AI, even with tests. This is the best example. [0]
[0] https://sketch.dev/blog/our-first-outage-from-llm-written-co...