logoalt Hacker News

judofyrlast Monday at 8:32 AM6 repliesview on HN

Very cool project! Always happy to see more work around static analysis.

However, looking at the recent commits it doesn't quite look like the most solid foundation: https://github.com/shuaimu/rusty-cpp/commit/480491121ef9efec...

    fn is_interior_mutability_type(type_name: &str) -> bool {
        type_name.starts_with("rusty::Cell<") ||
        type_name.starts_with("Cell<") ||
        type_name.starts_with("rusty::RefCell<") ||
        type_name.starts_with("RefCell<") ||
        // Also check for std::atomic which has interior mutability
        type_name.starts_with("std::atomic<") ||
        type_name.starts_with("atomic<")
    }
… which then 30 minutes later is being removed again because it turns out to be completely dead code: https://github.com/shuaimu/rusty-cpp/commit/84aae5eff72bb450...

There's also quite a lot of dead code. All of these warnings are around unused variable, functions, structs, fields:

    warning: `rusty-cpp` (bin "rusty-cpp-checker") generated 90 warnings (44 duplicates)

Replies

usefulposterlast Monday at 9:00 AM

    Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/code)
    via [Happy](https://happy.engineering)

    Co-Authored-By: Claude <[email protected]>
    Co-Authored-By: Happy <[email protected]>
This isn't just vibe code. It's mobile vibe code.

No logic, no coherence———just inconsistency.

---

Note: This is an experimental shitpost. Fork it. Share it. Use it. [EMOJI ROCKET]

show 1 reply
SkiFire13last Monday at 12:08 PM

https://github.com/shuaimu/rusty-cpp/blob/3707c09f5ff42bc5f6...

It also looks like it's skipping some lifetime checks in some sketchy way

mgaunardlast Monday at 10:29 AM

Just looking at the code excerpt makes it clear the code must be quite low quality

lifetimerubyistlast Monday at 2:28 PM

> made with AI

UncleEntitylast Monday at 3:40 PM

> …which then 30 minutes later is being removed again because it turns out to be completely dead code

I'm not sure if it's a good or bad thing people expect the robots to produce proper code on the first attempt?

hu3last Monday at 1:16 PM

Yours an other similar comments are disproportionally rude given that the author was very upfront about their methodology.

And I don't think it's constructive to cherrypick commits in this context.

> I even started trying out the fully autonomous coding: instead of examining its every action, I just write a TODO list with many tasks, and ask it to finish the tasks one by one.

> I never had to fully understand the code. What I had to do is: I asked it to give me a plan of changes before implementation, it gave me a few options, and then I chose the option that seemed most reasonable to me. Remember, I’m not an expert on this. I think most of the time, anybody who has taken some undergraduate compiler class would probably make the right choice.

The idea has merits. Take it as a PoC.

show 2 replies