Hacker News Reader

Comment by elchiapp | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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.

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 There might be a lot of rust code but if the apis are changing frequently it's all outdated and leads to unusable outputs.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com