Absolutely; I re-try using LLMs to debug this every so often and they just aren't capable of "fixing" anything borrow checker-related. They spit out some slop amalgamation of Rc/Arc/even UnsafeCell. They don't understand futures being send + sync. They don't understand lifetimes. The other path is it sometimes loops between two or three broken "fixes" that still don't compile.
"Sure! Let me...." (writes the most ungodly garbage Rust known to man)
Now, I certainly hope I'm wrong. It would be nice to enjoy similar benefits to guys doing more python/typescript work. I just doubt it's that good.
senior dev, rust very recent onboarder : my personal experience is that LLM are super helpful at the very very beginning, because they show you the very common rust pattern, and help with the verbose syntax by reducing the amount of typing ( which isn't usually a problem, but in rust it can be).
Then once you start reaching for a bit more complex problems (like ffi, or building your own lib), llms are actually making waste time spitting nonsense.
However, once your patterns are back on track, and you start to know a bit better what you're doing, you can easily dismiss those bad advices, and immediately give the llm hints that will make them useful again.
Well to start, you're really, really good at rust :)
I'm not sure. I've begun advocating for people, when they write blogposts etc., to dump and attach their conversations (unless precluded by security/privacy) so those of us who seem to get worse results can see if there are "tricks" or styles to it we miss. If you're amenable to it, this would be doubly helpful from someone who knows the language so extremely well!
"Sure! Let me...." (writes the most ungodly garbage Rust known to man)
Now, I certainly hope I'm wrong. It would be nice to enjoy similar benefits to guys doing more python/typescript work. I just doubt it's that good.