That total assumes API billing rates, which isn't what Anthropic pays for the inference. So I'm confused why people keep quoting that. It's not representative of what it'd cost for you either because you could use cheaper models.
> That total assumes API billing rates, which isn't what Anthropic pays for the inference. So I'm confused why people keep quoting that. It's not representative of what it'd cost for you either because you could use cheaper models.
It is, because this rewrite was marketing for Claude. So it reflects the price for what other companies might need to pay if they want to rewrite something else with similar size.
"Vibecoded" is not an accurate description of what actually happened. LLMs are extremely good at porting code from one language to another while preserving semantics. Which is why how everything turned out so well was not very surprising.
The Zig one uses raw pointers. These are bad and get out of hand quickly but at least don't have constraints like "you must never have two &mut on the same value". You may refer to c2rust to see how "semantics preserving transformation" without new UBs looks like.
Sorry, I did. And I did an internal sharing with respect to the blog post, on topics of how to (and not to) do software migration, how (not) to deal with unknown unknowns etc. We have several ongoing software (automated) migration projects so I did rather extensive research around it.
I do regret that I've also read the code though, otherwise I'd probably live a little happier with ignorance right now. Sadly as they don't know they don't know about the issues, there's no indication of those in the two public materials they have released.
https://aventasks.dev/
reply