Yes and no. Building is great. I actually think that code is disposable, but products are not, at least within a healthy delta T. Code review, refactoring and the eventual full re-write is one of the most satisfying activities IMHO.
However, software suffers from badly managed customization, hard-coding, due to pressure and functionality that may not be necessarily good to all users in the system - that's what I'm referring to. =)
I think you can always teach it a little bit, since for the chat session it holds "memory". So maybe adding/saying some basic algebra inputs it would output better or accurate results.
Because I use this as a technical source for many things on a daily basis. Other sites or communities still "balance" the conversation between all kinds of stuff, Python, Java, Node, C/C++, etc. Maybe startups have a stronger Rust following?
This is indeed an interesting point. I've worked with C/C++ and every single project or experience had some peculiarity: the platform, the compiler, some version limitation, etc.
Without compare language/platform abilities, it looks like a major hype cycle like Node or even Java back in the 90s and early 2000s. I read HN and see a lot of stuff around Rust that I don't see elsewhere, so this is also kind of a "why here?" question too. =)
However, software suffers from badly managed customization, hard-coding, due to pressure and functionality that may not be necessarily good to all users in the system - that's what I'm referring to. =)