Economics?!?!
“There’s absolutely no way an engineer with that salary would’ve been able to achieve the milestones Claude did in 11 days,” an impressed HashiCorp co-founder Mitchell Hashimoto noted on X.
HUH?!?! Blowing $165K in 11 days amounts to $15K per day. Figuring a US work year of 250 days, that annualizes to $3.75 million per year. I don't know any engineers making anything close to that kind of money.
The real questions are:
1. Could you get a team to perform that port in 11 days? Probably not. If there is a team already primed for translating from Zig to Rust with knowledge of Bun, there is the possibility of a rapid port, but completing it within 11 days seems unlikely. I'm a distrusting sort, so I can't help wonder if there might be some accounting generosity involved in the existing 11 day claim.
2. Could you perform this port for $165K or less? If you look at senior engineers in the US at, say, $250K per year (middling figure -- finance pays better, higher cost-of-living areas pay better, a lot of areas pay worse), then you have a convenient $1K per day figure. Can the task be accomplished in 165 staff-days? I can't say. If you elect to use a country with lower wages, and there are a number where you can pay 1/3 or less, then you buy more time. Could the task be accomplished in 495 staff-days? That seems more likely.
What I don't quite understand is how moving a large amount of code to a new language and creating a massive new code base with which no person has any degree of familiarity is a win in any sense of the word. Unless one commits to having AI manipulate the entire code base moving forward, the lack of understanding is a serious problem. If one does commit to having AI make all changes to the code base moving forward, one is stuck with employing a $3.75 million per year engineer. That might make sense if AI can replace your entire engineering staff, but otherwise I don't see how applying this approach generally does anything but bankrupt a company.