> there were better tools to do their operating systems research on.
I think that's the key, Ritchie, Thompson, Pike were interested in OS research while people that love C today just want a simple and powerful language with manual memory management. It is not the first time in history when the creation has a separate life from the creator's wishes.
You can't 100% be sure the AI won't hallucinate. If you don't want to manually check it, you can have a different AI check it and if it finds something suspect flag it for a human to verify it. Even better have 2 different AIs check the output and if they don't agree flag it.
AFAIK there is no Rust compiler for Plan 9 or 9front. The project is using a dialect of C and its own C compiler(s). I doubt adding Rust to the mix will help. For a research OS, C is a nice clean language and the Plan 9 dialect has a some niceties not found in standard C.
If you really want Rust, check this https://github.com/r9os/r9 it is Plan 9 reimplemented in Rust (no idea about the project quality):
R9 is a reimplementation of the plan9 kernel in Rust. It is not only inspired by but in many ways derived from the original Plan 9 source code.
There isn't, though you can run it over wasm on it. I tried it a while back with a port of the w2c2 transpiler (https://github.com/euclaise/w2c9/), but something like wazero is a more obvious choice
It is kind of interesting that C inventors, contrary to the folks that worship C, not only did not care about ANSI/ISO compatibility, they ended up exploring Aleph, Limbo and Go.
While Bell Labs eventually started Cyclone, which ended up influencing Rust.
I appreciate that the author clearly states that he wrote the book with various LLMs. This way people that don't want to read LLM generated text (like me) can skip it and LLM enthusiasts can enjoy it.
this book was written with significant assistance from Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools. In the current era of technical publishing, deliberately avoiding AI would be highly inefficient and likely counterproductive, potentially even resulting in a lower-quality final product compared to what can be achieved with AI augmentation. Virtually all high-quality manufactured goods we use daily are produced with the aid of sophisticated tools and automation; applying similar principles to the creation of a programming book seems logical.
Using chatbots tells a lot about author's abilities. It is OK to use chatbots to adapt your book to some 9yo students, it is OK to generate images for a computer game to be permitted publishing it in someone's software market, it is OK to use advanced spell checking.
But it is not OK to make your tool thinking instead of you. If chatbot can generate the book for you about some random topic that means the book is already existing. What a sucker your reader should be if he chooses to read a byproduct handbook written by the entity who does not have an ability to learn at all.
reply