[elchiapp]

How is that different from choosing not to adopt a technology because it’s not widely used therefore not widely documented? It’s the timeless mantra of “use boring tech” that seems to resurface every once in a while. It’s all about the goal: do you want to build a viable product, quickly, or do you want to learn and contribute to a specific tech stack? That’s the trade off most of the time.

[Bolwin]

It's a lot worse. A high quality project can have great documentation and guides that make it easy to use for a human, but an LLM won't until there's a lot of code and documents out there using it.

And if it's not already popular, that won't happen.

[tptacek]

No, this doesn't ring true: long before there were LLMs, people were selecting languages and stacks because of the quality and depth of their community.

But also: there is a lot of Rust code out there! And a cubic fuckload of high-quality written material about the language, its idioms, and its libraries, many of which are pretty famous. I don't think this issue is as simple as it's being out to be.

[tayo42]

Isn't this article an example of that. There might be a lot of rust code but if the apis are changing frequently it's all outdated and leads to unusable outputs.

[littlestymaar]

It's not Rust in particular, but Bevy the game engine which is much newer than Rust and still has many breaking changes between version.

It's a bit like Rust in 2014, you would never have had enough material for LLMs to train on.