I just vibecofed tsasm. tsrs is obsolete now and anyone who still uses it is hopelessly behind the times. The tsrs team should delete the repository immediately and join my project.
I just vibecofed tsasm. tsrs is obsolete now and anyone who still uses it is hopelessly behind the times. The tsrs team should delete the repository immediately and join my project.
Too late I just shipped tsvhdl so you have a hardware implementation of the actual TS compiler. Why steal valuable CPU cycles from agent workflows, off load all transpilation and type checking to a dedicated TSC chip.
Too late I just shipped tsasic so you can have a custom-made board for every single application you will ever write.
I am okay if agents can write code that is very safe in ASM. I am sure code written in Rust are naturally safe compared to asm or c. Waiting for tsasm to be significantly faster and safer than tsrs.
People massively overestimate Rust's "safety" - it has a very nice approach to managing data races, and. that's it.
It still, like every other language/tool we have that shares state between threads, has race conditions, for example.
Borrow checker aside, I would like to think that its type system inherently makes it safer than a language like C.
That is a confidently incorrect assertion.
They said race conditions and specifically exempted data races. You can absolutely write race conditions in rust, they're a logic bug.
As an example, let's say you have two functions A and B. A only works properly if B has never ran for some reason. Let's say they both accept a reference to a value C, and B changes C's value somehow. Because this is rust, we can't have data races, so we wrap it in an ArcMutex or what have you. That doesn't impact the ordering of A and B at all.
If we spawn threads that execute A and B at the same time, it's up to the scheduler if A functions properly.
You are being downvoted but you are absolutely correct. I have never seen someone assert Rust is a 100% safe. Its touted purely as a _memory_ safe language. To claim otherwise is absurd and very telling of the writer's biases
> I have never seen someone assert Rust is a 100% safe
Please copy and paste from my post where that's being asserted
> Its touted purely as a _memory_ safe language
Which is different from what was said... how?
> To claim otherwise is absurd and very telling of the writer's biases
To pretend that those claims were made is what's actually telling of biases.
Did you? GitHub link? because that would be awesome! which asm target did you pick? I looked at using LLVMs' LVM because I didn't want to have to choose ARM or x86? What are some of the trade-offs you made along the way? Wait, are you making a joke and think you're funny? (Hate to be the bearer of bad news but you're not.)