[tayo42]

> Claude will hallucinate things about Rust code because it’s a statistical model, not a static analysis tool.

I think that's the point of the article.

In a dynamic language or a compiled language, its going to be hallucinating either way. If you vibe coding the errors are caught earlier so you can vibe code them away before it blows up at run time.

[muglug]

Static analysis tools like rustc and clippy are powerful, but there are large classes of errors that escape those analyses — e.g. things like off-by-one errors.

[teleforce]

> If you vibe coding the errors are caught earlier so you can vibe code them away before it blows up at run time

You can say that again.

I was looking into the many comments for this particular comment and you did hit the nail on the head.

The irony is that it took the entire GenAI -> LLM -> vibe coding cycle to settle the argument that typed language is better for human coding and software engineering.

[Paradigma11]

Sure, but in my experience the advantage is less than one would imagine. LLMs are really good at pattern matching and as long as they have the API and the relevant source code in their context they wont make many/any of the errors that humans are prone to.