‘Safe rust’ just being used to mean ‘no unsafe’ is kind of a shallow understanding of the language. You can write code without unsafe that is not really ideal at all eg abusing vector/slice indexing to create a kind of interior mutability that the borrow checker is blind to. Which as a C port I’m going to guess it probably ends up doing
Almost hard to believe that someone using an LLM to mindlessly migrate software from one language to another for no practical reason at all would have a shallow understanding of those languages...
It's a videogame, there doesn't have to be a 'practical" reason. Somebody does something for fun and all you get is negativity. Some of you have lost your sense of curiosity.
What "curiosity" is there in telling Claude: "Do Quake, but Rust this time"?
Taking apart a codebase and rebuilding it in another language can be a deeply fun and rewarding experience if you're trying to understand a system better or sharpen your language skills or engage with an old problem in a new way. But none of that is what's happening here.
Having an LLM do things like this when there's no other practical need for it only accomplishes the cheap dopamine hit of "result", and people who do that are only mortgaging their own curiosity and increasing their dependency on a machine to run their own mind for them. Maybe I'm just a curmudgeon, but that seems pretty worthy of 'negativity' to me.
They said they worked on it over about 4 months. I'm assuming that takes a pretty decent amount of prompting and therefore effort and learning.