Ah good point. Guess you’ll have to explicitly check.

You could do ./$TEMPDIR or better yet, just check it is still defined and non-empty.

Or even betterer yet, don’t use Bash for something that you want to be robust. That’s like trying to build a life vest out of knives.

That’s WSL though. Not really Windows…

How do I install Nix on Windows?

The real question is “does your IDE support this?”. Deno does. Most of them are a “no” though.

It’s absolutely going to last. IMO until Astra the models were not good enough to really be worth bothering with, but we’ve reached a tipping point.

And while I still do read the code they make and then fix things (or tell them to do things differently), it’s still waaaay quicker than doing it “by hand”.

Sorry but if you’re expecting this to be a temporary thing you’re going to be very disappointed.

This is the worst argument against “just a tool” I’ve heard.

Several of those are fairly borderline. You would think Drew Devault of all people would understand that its ok to not be 100% squeaky clean.

I’m not saying that list doesn’t include a lot of creeps, but maybe he shouldn’t have included “donated to an organisation that includes someone who is antagonistic” and “is an average American Christian” along with the “fervent defender of paedophilia”.

Not exactly. It means that any of the code could lead to memory unsafety, but it’s still better than Zig or C because you still only have to read 5% of the code to debug/fix those issues, instead of 100%.

5% is clearly better than 100%. Whatever else you think about this port you can’t argue against that. In fact I can prove that it’s better.

1. Does Rust’s memory safety design improve memory safety? Yes, this is proven by experience (e.g. see Google’s blog posts).

2. Does “normal” (not slop) Rust code rely on some unsafe? Yes. All Rust code must use some unsafe because it’s used in the standard library, and even if you ignore that (there is an effort led by Amazon to formally verify it), it’s usual for Rust projects to use at least some unsafe. Let’s say 0.1% of lines.

3. So 0.1% unsafe is clearly better than 100%. Is it possible for 0.1% unsafe to be better than 100%, but somehow 5% isn’t? That would require things to be non-monotonic which is completely implausible.

Sure, but only 5% of the Rust code is unsafe, which is clearly an improvement. And their plan is to reduce that amount over time.

I’m no fan of AI slop but that point isn’t an issue.