> Rust off Rails is a set of Markdown files that tell coding agents how to build a full-stack Rust web app: one blessed stack, one layout, one way to do each thing. The convention lives in the prose. The agent writes the code...Other frameworks ship a library. Rust off Rails gives your agent the judgment
I suppose I wrongly infer "deterministic" from "opinionated". But this approach still doesn't particularly opinionated other than "AI agents are sophisticated and reliable enough nowadays to build a stable Rust app from Markdown instructions"
Rails has a ton of conventions but also implements a lot of patterns described in Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture. People seem to forget the latter.
"Mostly Claude Opus 5.5 in Claude Code, with one human steering by prompts. "
I find it funny that I would happily use a version of this if I created it (with Claude), but somehow cannot get myself to use it since it's been prompted by someone else.
I wonder what's that about.
I feel the same way, there’s a disconnect between writing the code and prompting the code that requires a different form of interaction from the human, I’ll call it respect for lack of a better word.
The problem for me, and I suspect for you, is I don’t know how to quantify the level of respect other humans have put into their prompt engineering and iterative processes to ensure the output is satisfactory.
I think we’re going to eventually learn how to determine prompt competence the same way we’ve determined code competence but it’s going to take a while before it all shakes out.
It reminds me of when everyone was trying to build their own frontend framework. Like "neat, I agree with this in concept, but I don't trust your code or you to maintain this project"
I think that's it really, the fact that someone else made it. Sometimes we make things for ourselves that lean perhaps on the _functional_ side, (tools, food...) that we would never want served to us. And AI just exacerbates this. I do wonder why that is though.
That's something I don't fully understand with a lot of these (clearly ai generated) projects.
If you didn't take the time to build the thing you're trying to sell to me (even if it's free) why should I buy (use) it? I could just prompt my own solution instead of randomly curl-installing some thing from someone I don't know.
For me it's because I've seen what others do with Claude vs how I iterate with Claude. There's an enormous range in the bound "one human steering". Oh, is that a zen koan? What is the sound of one human steering?
I suppose I wrongly infer "deterministic" from "opinionated". But this approach still doesn't particularly opinionated other than "AI agents are sophisticated and reliable enough nowadays to build a stable Rust app from Markdown instructions"
https://loco.rs/
I find it funny that I would happily use a version of this if I created it (with Claude), but somehow cannot get myself to use it since it's been prompted by someone else. I wonder what's that about.
The problem for me, and I suspect for you, is I don’t know how to quantify the level of respect other humans have put into their prompt engineering and iterative processes to ensure the output is satisfactory.
I think we’re going to eventually learn how to determine prompt competence the same way we’ve determined code competence but it’s going to take a while before it all shakes out.
If you didn't take the time to build the thing you're trying to sell to me (even if it's free) why should I buy (use) it? I could just prompt my own solution instead of randomly curl-installing some thing from someone I don't know.
Am I the crazy one here?