Slashdot Mirror
Rust Creator Graydon Hoare Says Current Software Development Practices Terrify Him (twitter.com)
An anonymous reader writes:
On Monday Graydon Hoare, the original creator of the Rust programming language, posted some memories on Twitter. "25 years ago I got a job at a computer bookstore. We were allowed to borrow and read the books; so I read through all the language books, especially those with animals on the covers. 10 years ago I had a little language of my own printing hello world." And Monday he was posting a picture of O'Reilly Media's first edition of their new 622-page book Programming Rust: Fast, Safe Systems Development. Then he elaborated to his followers about what happened in between.
"I made a prototype, then my employer threw millions of dollars at it and hired dozens of researchers and programmers (and tireless interns, hi!) and a giant community of thousands of volunteers showed up and _then_ the book arrived. (After Jim and Jason wrote it and like a dozen people reviewed it and a dozen others edited it and an army of managers coordinated it and PLEASE DESIST IN THINKING THINGS ARE MADE BY SINGLE PEOPLE IT IS A VERY UNHEALTHY MYTH)." He writes that the nostaglic series of tweets was inspired because "I was just like a little tickled at the circle-of-life feeling of it all, reminiscing about sitting in a bookstore wondering if I'd ever get to work on cool stuff like this."
One Twitter user then asked him if Rust was about dragging C++ hackers halfway to ML, to which Hoare replied "Not dragging, more like throwing C/C++ folks (including myself) a life raft wrt. safety... Basically I've an anxious, pessimist personality; most systems I try to build are a reflection of how terrifying software-as-it-is-made feels to me. I'm seeking peace and security amid a nightmare of chaos. I want to help programmers sleep well, worry less."
"I made a prototype, then my employer threw millions of dollars at it and hired dozens of researchers and programmers (and tireless interns, hi!) and a giant community of thousands of volunteers showed up and _then_ the book arrived. (After Jim and Jason wrote it and like a dozen people reviewed it and a dozen others edited it and an army of managers coordinated it and PLEASE DESIST IN THINKING THINGS ARE MADE BY SINGLE PEOPLE IT IS A VERY UNHEALTHY MYTH)." He writes that the nostaglic series of tweets was inspired because "I was just like a little tickled at the circle-of-life feeling of it all, reminiscing about sitting in a bookstore wondering if I'd ever get to work on cool stuff like this."
One Twitter user then asked him if Rust was about dragging C++ hackers halfway to ML, to which Hoare replied "Not dragging, more like throwing C/C++ folks (including myself) a life raft wrt. safety... Basically I've an anxious, pessimist personality; most systems I try to build are a reflection of how terrifying software-as-it-is-made feels to me. I'm seeking peace and security amid a nightmare of chaos. I want to help programmers sleep well, worry less."
Don't know enough about programming languages to recognise a reference to the ML language, even in a tweet that also describes some of its features? Just elide the references you dont understand and replace ML with "machine learning" and you too can be a Slashdot submitter! Don't worry, there are no editors checking that your summary reflects the contents of your links.
PLEASE DESIST IN THINKING THINGS ARE MADE BY SINGLE PEOPLE IT IS A VERY UNHEALTHY MYTH
Um, I hate to break it to you, but there are plenty of single person projects out there. You can find some of them on Patreon for example.
Daily read for tech news: Freezenet.ca
Well, his zombified hoarde of brainwashed language fanbois terrifies me, so I guess we're even.
The summary say "machine learning" but if you read this feed you'll see it's "ML". ML is programming language.
I know some people are excited about it but Rust is just the language de jure until it gets an actual spec that other people can implement.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
... making the difference between "return the evaluation of this expression" vs "don't" is such an improvement in software development practices.
Rust is interesting, the way that that wreck on the 101 is "interesting".
-- A change is as good as a reboot.
"more like throwing C/C++ folks (including myself) a life raft wrt. safety"
Wat?
Why is it the language's job to make sure your code is somehow "safe"?
DeWalt doesn't sell power tools that go out of their way to make sure you don't cut off your fingers. If they did, that tool would be unimaginably complex, and likely break down even faster than another tool because of all the additional parts. The user is expected to know how to use the tool so they don't cut off their own fingers.
Programming should be no different.
none of you god damn shitforbrains could comprehend what my code does besides make goddamn money hand over fist while your 401k balance sits there making some fatass dickheads richer
If I had to guess, I'd say your a quant with a BBC fetish and a micropenis.
Actually we need more 'coding' languages.
Unfortunately you wont be one who invents/discovers/formulates one.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The problem is, there isn't a perfect language, and there's no language that perfectly covers all styles and domains. Thus people do come up with new ones in order to fill a void. Ie, C was good enough for most things awhile back, but it's hard to learn it well and use it well and very easy to make mistakes in. Then Objective C and C++ gave a couple of different takes on object oriented programming. Modula-II and Ada came from a European lineage, with a good set of abstractions and type safety. Lisp led to Common Lisp with object orientation, then Scheme for a functional version. Then all the scripting languages that don't have to be compiled, some that are meant to be quick and dirty to get the job done, and others that try to be more structured and formal.
So all these languages try to either adapt to a niche that other languages don't fit into very well, or try to improve on past languages.
He is terrified of other language because, being a Social Justice Warrior, his group finds the terms "master" and "slave" to be "problematic."
No, I'm not kidding, though I wish I were.
When a language is gleefully throwing away well understood, well used terms because of someone's misguided feelings, then quite frankly I wonder what other decisions - truly important ones - have been impacted by the same toxic SJW attitude.
I learned from the very beginning to always ask "why?" why should i switch to this ? why refactor ? why change to that ? and the answer should always be "the bring x improvement to the business"
A very simple reflex that acts as a shield in front of the hype and marketing. (but takes a lot from the free time to play around with the new toys and small implementations of the new ideas to answer properly)
So when i check out a new coding language the first thing i look for is their justification, their answer to the "Why ?" question and most of the time their answer is about improving the interpreter or the compiler (a safer c/c++, and a faster performing python). and rarely about the syntax itself...
I like change and new, I don't like jumping into someone else's code, hell i don't like jumping in my own code, and i'd rather make 10 new things than refactor one. so i get why people chose to reinvent declarations and tests. the problem is jumping into it in production and buying to the hype before letting projects mature and answering the right questions: "when" and "why" mostly.
Nice theory, but people who read the BBC generally know how to spell and punctuate.
I have recently performed a relatively simple development by using programming languages on which I had low-to-to-no experience: Perl (low), Ruby (no), Rust (no) and Go (no). Note that I am quite adaptable on the programming language front and that this small experiment was precisely meant to showcase these adaptability skills. Rust was, by far, the most difficult-to-learn, difficult-to-research, counter-intuitive, unfriendly, constrained, unappealing, etc. of all of them. Warnings and errors appeared systematically and, despite their verbosity, were rarely helpful. I had problems even to find an editor/install it! (relied on Visual Studio Code in both Linux and Windows, an editor which I rarely use; and had to struggle with my Visual C++ installation on Windows, which was working fine until Rust came in).
The most ironic part is that so many restrictions and problems are likely to provoke people to rely on whatever option happens to work, which might not be the best/safest one. Being so concerned about making sure that the generated code is extremely safe no matter what by sacrificing flexibility and user friendliness is far from ideal. Restrictions and prohibitions have always to be seen as an in-the-worst-case-scenario resource, not as a primary solution; much less when dealing with something as complex as programming, a very powerful tool supposed to be managed by knowledgeable individuals. The higher the freedom, the better the results delivered by a sensible/knowledgeable person. Unless Rust changes a lot, I don't see it going anywhere. It might get some support from theoretical/academical/inside-whatever-bubble circles, but seriously doubt that developers with real-world experience can like or even accept most of what this language represents.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
That would be the *other* BBC :)
I'd say your a quant with a BBC fetish
So he watches a lot of TV or are you saying he has a big stack of 8 bitters running Teletext?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
It's a bit hard for me to trust someone whose webpage had a banner proudly suggesting voluntary human extinction to make a programming language that is more secure.
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
I find it hard to believe that the DoD would use commie unarmed foreign godless pinko commie stuff.
Ada was originally designed by a team led by Jean Ichbiah of CII Honeywell Bull under contract to the United States Department of Defense (DoD) from 1977 to 1983 to supersede over 450 programming languages used by the DoD at that time.[9]
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Because we need an even bigger Cyber War Domain, courtesy of C and C++.
You forgot the Algol tradition, which is also the root of Rust. Strong typing, memory safety. They built entire mainframes using Algol.
Then came the cheapness of Unix and C. Like Burgers and sugar water it spread worldwide. Who needs good food if you can have cheap shit?
That must be why the jobsearch websites are full of positions where the main requirement is yacc.
I'd love to work on a 100 person project with 101 different languages. I mean, who wouldn't?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
What the fuck is Rust? Never heard.
Rust is a relatively new programming language.
I looked into using it a little while ago. On the surface it sounded appealing. It sounded like it would give me a lot of what C++ offers, but without some of the headaches that C++ suffers from.
To keep a long story short, Rust, as a language, did not meet my expectations. The syntax is C-like, but it's also quirky in some ways. The performance was mediocre. The borrow-checking approach to memory management is a pain in the bottom in practice, even after you understand it and have worked with it. There was only one compiler implementation, and I found it to be buggy and slow, even compared to a slow C++ compiler like GCC. The standard library was pretty bad, and the string handling was atrocious. Third-party libraries often didn't compile, and many were woefully incomplete. It was a really bad experience.
But the worst part, in my opinion, was the Rust community. I've dealt with a lot of programming language communities over the decades, but Rust's was by far the worst I've ever experienced.
The whole Rust Code of Conduct thing is kind of weird. I mean, programming language communities got along just fine without codes of conduct for ages. At first I though it was just a symbolic thing, but I soon realized that the Rust Code of Conduct was much more than that. I'd classify it more as a religious text, or even a behavioral script. It was like the Rust community worshiped it. In my experience it turned what should have been friendly discussion among collaborating colleagues into a highly controlled, flow-chart-like, courtroom-like, overly-formal, totally-artificial, robotic-like ritual. You literally had to walk on eggshells the whole time, out of fear of accidentally violating the Rust Code of Conduct in some obscure and non-obvious way.
The Rust Code of Conduct itself is contradictory. For example, there's a paragraph that says, "we don’t tolerate behavior that excludes people", yet that same paragraph starts with, "We will exclude you from interaction if ...". They basically would be violating their own Rust Code of Conduct when they try to uphold it!
I later found out that they even have a Rust Moderation Team that goes around and enforces the Rust Code of Conduct! I can't think of any other programming language community that I've dealt with that has a formally organized hit squad whose sole purpose is to take out community members who are deemed to be "undesirable". It's absurd. It's really, really absurd.
Something else I found disturbing was the extreme leftism that permeated the community. Now I don't think that programming and politics really need to mix much. They're pretty separate, for the most part. But in my experience the Rust community was very heavily into promoting "diversity" and "tolerance" and all of those other left-wing buzzwords, even when they really had nothing to do with programming. It's like they're more focused on "social justice" than they are on creating a usable programming language.
Another thing that bothered me was the smugness I kept encountering from Rust's contributors and supporters. They kept portraying Rust as being this great savior, when in my opinion it's rather mediocre, and actually has some pretty serious flaws and problems. If you questioned these Rust supporters, they would basically belittle and insult you, assuming they didn't try to censor you through down-modding or banning, if the discussion venue supported such things. I found it strange how they often ridiculed C++, yet when it came to the same functionality or features Rust was often much worse than C++.
I've been programming for a long time, and I've used a lot of different programming languages, but my experience with Rust was perhaps the worst I've ever experienced. No programming languag
Not that BBC....
Graydon Hoare sounds like the SIGSEGVs he got from his crappy C++ code triggered him.
Then, in classic SJW form, he completely overreacted. And keeping with the SJW "thought" process, it wasn't his fault: a bad workman always blames his tools...
Rust is the intersectional racist victim-mongering language - we are all victims of RAAAACIST C and C++ - languages that allow you to think for yourself - and therefore you are responsible for your code.
Rust is the perfect SJW language - it tells you how to think and absolves you of any personal responsibility for your code.
Oh wait, they think innovation is following the latest fad that they think is new. (Literally I had someone that thinks he's the shit show me lambda expressions and thought I would be blown away. Yeah, saw that 30 years ago in LISP.)
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
The selection of a crab as the O'Reilly book cover animal was very fitting. Rust advocates are like pubic crabs: irritating, tenacious, and usually located where they are least wanted.
Not that BBC. I think you need to visit someone for a bit of CBT, might help you calm down.
Oh.. not that CBT, the other one. :-)
Well, what your parent probably meant:
ADA looks like Pascal/Modula 2, which are languages invented in Europe, and is named after Ada Lovelace ...
Everything very european, and everything non commie ...
No idea why americans mix european up with commie, must be a universal health care thing ...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
It takes 5-7 Yeats to learn anything to a more than cursory level. Simple programming languages are included in that statement. It's just that some languages fool you into thinking you know more than you do. It's a function of the size of the ecosystem and the primary area of application.
C++ is used for more complicated stuff, on average, than Perl or JavaScript, so you end up feeling like you don't know what you're doing when you jump into the deep end on a C++ project. Again, on average.
I am a consulting real-time systems engineer.
I created the paging and hand-off algorithms which made it possible for cell phones to receive phone calls anywhere and to keep them while moving.
I created the integrated on-line inventory accounting system for McDonalds.
I created the software used by major refineries to make gasoline and distillate from crude oil.
I created software that runs steel mills.
My programs had to work properly, or people died.
I used ANSI C for my work. I created libaries to handle I/O and Memory Management including Garbage Collection.
I mostly worked alone, often with a small team of 6 - 12, and toward the end with 97 at McDonalds and 45 at Home Shopping Network.
By the end of my career, I designed systems using a CASE tool set, then pushed the button and the tool generated the code.
Rust, like C++ and C#, is an academic's desire to get tenure via publications in journals. It, like the others, is a memory hog, snd over hyped.
The problem with C is it will let you do anything the machine is capable of. good, bad, or ugly. It is up to the engineer to specify the desired functionality.
The Functional Specification............
To specify the program architecture.......... The Architectural Specification....
To specify test conditions, and success criteria.. The Test Specification
To specify transformations performed by each and every routine.......... The Detailed Design Specification
To specify data architecture...... The Database Specification
To specify data definitions and constants........... The Header Files...............
Then to write the code in conformance with the above.
It matters not whether you are using COBOL, PL1, ALGOL, BASIC, FORTRAN, ASM, C, C++, C#, JAVA, or RUST.
The professional engineer, thinks, specifys, writes, and tests..... in that order.
INDY
It was heavily influenced by and related to languages designed by Niklaus Wirth. After all, many Americans also came from a European lineage.
I was referring to the BBC the Brits actually love.
Are you just going through my comments trolling now that you proved yourself incompetent in a debate? Grow up.
PLEASE DESIST IN THINKING THINGS ARE MADE BY SINGLE PEOPLE IT IS A VERY UNHEALTHY MYTH
It is absolutely true. There is no myth to it. I have been involved in dozens of projects from the tiny, to the absurdly huge. On the small projects I have worked on, they were almost without exception, single developer projects. A single guy building the hardware (for that type of product), and a single software / firmware guy doing the programming. For more medium sized projects, You might break the software into UI and server type setup where each piece is handled by a separate person, but they are essentially separate programs with an API in between. I have also worked on larger projects where I was the sole developer. I had one where I was the sole developer and produced a system that had 50k lines in it. (I was replacing a 250k line product that was written by committee and sucked a fat nut). Took me about a year to reproduce the entire thing complete with learning about the requirements and documenting the new codebase.
I am currently working on another large product (high performance database implementation). We have 4 developers on the project, plus two people who perform code reviews only. Of those 4, only two of us actually produce code in any significant quantity, 1 is an entry level guy that produces what you would expect form an entry level guy, and the other produces not much. The biggest stumbling block is the reviews and documentation process. We do peer reviewed designs and peer reviewed code. The problem is that one of the two review only team members is hopelessly out of his league, and we spend huge amounts of time and effort arguing with him about the designs and review because he simply doesn't get it. He used to be a code contributor to the project, but most of the code he produced has had to be replaced (It was accepted before there was a review process).
The original team for this project consisted of two people, the reviewer mentioned above, and one other person that is no longer with the company. They hired more developers to increase the performance of the "team", when all they needed to do was get rid of the problem and replace him with a competent person, and the project would have moved along just fine. By keeping him on, they are simply slowing down the entire team. I would estimate that he is contributing about -70% of a developer worth of work because he creates so much more work for others than he actually contributes to the project.
TLDR: more developers rarely gets the project done faster or better. You need high quality devs and you need to get out of their way. The biggest challenge is that there are many times as many mediocre or bad devs as there are good devs, and it can be very difficult to tell the difference in an interview. Experience doesn't always mean better either. The problem guy above has been programming for at least 15 years that I know of, and if you give him a hundred more, he still won't be any good.
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
I like Rust, and I use it daily, but I also think that you're full of shit for attacking the AC that posted that comment. It's the message that matters, not the messenger. In this case a lot of that message is spot on correct. It doesn't matter if an AC or a registered user posted that comment about Rust. It's an equally valid set of concerns either way. As a Rust user it bothers me to see the Rust community have such thin skin so often. Instead of trying to improve Rust and its reputation, we see Rust supporters like you disgrace the Rust community with your false accusations of 'trolling'. Grow a pair of balls, and please stop making the Rust community look worse than it already does.
Please stop. You're just making the Rust community as a whole look worse than it already looks. There are a lot of us who are trying to repair Rust's reputation, but our efforts are negated by the rudeness that you have been displaying.
Bingo!
People ask me about which language is preferred or better. I say look at what your organization uses, the tools available and the support.
Now I can avoid this debacle!
I like Rust. I use it a lot. But I have to admit, the gp comment is right in a lot of ways. It doesn't matter if that comment was posted before. What matters is that it's still very relevant, which means that we, the Rust community, have not done enough to address those concerns. Instead of attacking people who are pointing out problems with Rust and its community, we should listen to what they're saying and try to better ourselves and our language. Your rude and disrespectful comment isn't helping to make Rust better. In fact I think your comment just reinforces the idea that the Rust community is toxic. Here we have somebody pointing out valid concerns about Rust's community, and what have members of Rust's community, like you, done in response? You've attacked with the exact kind of toxic rudeness that the gp comment describes! Please stop, and please try to behave in a way that improves Rust and Rust's reputation instead of acting in the toxic manner you just exhibited.
Are you intentionally trying to make the Rust community look toxic? When you start calling people names and acting disrespectfully, like you just did, it only serves to reinforce the widespread idea that Rust's community is in fact 'toxic'.
I can see why people think that the Rust community is 'toxic'. Just look at the various comments here in response to that earlier comment that very reasonably pointed out some problems affecting Rust and its community. I'm talking about comments like those from lucasnate1 and serviscope_minor. Instead of acknowledging the concerns and trying to address them to help make Rust and its community better, Rust community members like lucasnate1 and serviscope_minor engaged in rude, disrespectful, and even petty attacks and insults. Their comments are the very definition of toxicity. It's hard to convince people that the Rust community isn't 'toxic' when Rust community members actively engage in behaviors that are best described as being toxic!
Can a Rust-ally mod please mod down the parent comment? It doesn't reflect how Rust community members behave. We don't condone toxic attacks like the parent comment. We engage in the opposite behavior - when people have concerns about Rust we show them respect and compassion, and we listen to what they're saying. We don't attack them for voicing concerns about Rust. We listen and we try to improve ourselves and our programming language. Please mod down the parent because it isn't an example of how we in the Rust community conduct ourselves.
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/25640
https://github.com/rust-lang-deprecated/rust-buildbot/issues/2
Fair point, but I'm pretty sure "Not Invented Here" was invented there.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Sadly, his comment is in line with stuff I've seen in the wild. Not *exclusively*, mind. I'm sure there's plenty of normal Rust coders, but it doesn't take a particularly large coterie of insufferable douchenozzles to leave an impression that is really difficult to overcome (in part because, at least for that coterie and those who accommodate them, it's a true impression.)
"People will pay big bucks for the luxury of ignorance."
SJW is a term coined by SJWs themselves, and at the time it was meant as a compliment. But at some point, people who aren't activists realized just how smug they are and how entitled they feel, (see the Hugh Mungus lady, and just how bitchy she is when she misconstrues everything as being an affront to women) and just how they're favored topics (identity politics, for example) are really a load of total bullshit.
A classic SJW in pop culture is PC Principal.
Yes, and Ichbiah was a Frenchman working in France. How much commie unarmed foreign godless pinko commie than that can you get? ;)
Ezekiel 23:20
If you test at all you recognize your fallibility. If you are fallible then your tools should make bugs less likely to have severe consequences. The only way your thinking could be consistent is if you removed the testing part. If you are convinced you can do it first time perfect without testing, then better languages to be able to consistently express constraints and guarantee them are not necessary ... you are, so they are.
Instead you convince yourself that your tests, which we both know will not have had 100% coverage, caught 100% of your bugs. Not even your impressive resume makes that kind of thinking justified.
I see that you haven't made any attempt to refute what that comment says about the Rust programming language and the Rust community.
So I'm going to have to assume that what that comment is claiming is correct.
Your response also raises an interesting question: why are you so eager to suppress what that comment is claiming?
That makes me yet again believe that what the comment is claiming is correct.
I also see a lot of other Rust fanatics here attacking that comment, but none of them have actually disproved what that comment is claiming.
Once again, that makes me think that what the comment is claiming is correct.
A cheese-eating surrender monkey? It would never happen now.
Make America Grate Again. Grate ... cheese. Oh, fuck it.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
SJW is a term coined by SJWs themselves [...]
Nope, not even close.
I think you're thinking of the term "PC", which was indeed coined as a joke by the PC crowd.
"Social Justice Warrior" is a term that arose on Tumblr and Livejournal to describe a certain kind of keyboard warrior (related to what we used to call "flame warrior"). Here's the definition on Urban Dictionary:
A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will "get SJ points" and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are "correct" in their social circle.
The SJW's favorite activity of all is to dogpile. Their favorite websites to frequent are Livejournal and Tumblr. They do not have relevant favorite real-world places, because SJWs are primarily civil rights activists only online.
If you see someone in real life engaging in activism to reform the structures of society to be more just (as they see it), that person is not a SJW the way it was originally understood.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
It's the message that matters, not the messenger.
In many cases that's true, but if someone is calling out a code of conduct, it kind of does matter the person calling it out has been personally affected by it.
The stated purpose of a typical code of conduct is to keep everything civil and professional in official channels. If it's not doing that job (either because things are not civil and professional in official channels, or because it's hurting people in other ways), we need to know, and details matter. Abstract, hypothetical, or context-free arguments are meaningless here.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
That's completely wrong. In fact, there's an article from The Washington Post that proves you wrong. The reporter dug into the etymology of the term and found the opposite of what you're incorrectly claiming.
The article repeatedly contradicts what you're saying (I changed some of the quotation marks and apostrophes since Slashdot still can't handle Unicode characters):
ArmoredDragon is right, and you're wrong. All of the evidence suggests that it's a term that they came up with to describe themselves, and this usage predates the websites you listed.
...it would lend some credence to your comment if you bothered to register an account....
Posted by an AC, no less.
It would lend some credence to your comment...well you know the rest.
Wow, just wow.
Those languages do not count from 0. Nor do they use {}s. So they must be inefficient.
I have never looked at Rust and never participated in Rust's community.
But when someone posted a clear, well-written comment with some very specific points, and then I see only people either agreeing with or attacking the messenger, but no one refuted the specific points raised... The only reasonable take away is that the points were valid and that got some people pissed.
It might be a copy/pasted post, so what? One can repeat a lie a hundred times, but one cannot repeat the truth?
Oliver.
I disagree. I've had a really good understanding of C++ after about a year. Yes, I was inexperienced, but even nearly a decade after I still think my knowledge *of the language* is about the same (ignoring for a moment that there's a lot more to know in current C++ than pre-11).
Those who sacrifice liberty for a little peace and security deserve neither.
Wait, I thought this was a /. post on the government encroaching on...oh, never mind.
Hi. I'm not a Rust supporter, I don't know anything about it except that it came from Mozilla, and I did not attack the person I was replying to.
It was merely a friendly suggestion, and I see two mods agreed with my message.
I do have an account, and this time I decided to post under it. I suppose I could have used it for my earlier post too, but I don't always bother to log in.
(And my skin is fairly thick, but I am not particularly fond of faecal references.)
"Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 58 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment" -- slashdot, driving users away.
IMO, a top dev empowers other devs by helping them to become more productive; a decent dev adds more value over time than he or she takes away; a crappy dev takes away more value over time than he or she adds. The fact that most code bases rot over time is at least in part due to the fact that crappy devs tend to predominate over top or even decent ones; same bell curve as with most other skills, except that software development is one in which crappy work is significantly worse than no work at all. IMO, crappy devs can learn to add value only by being mentored, and being taught to learn from their mistakes so that over time they become better. Leaving them alone, without motivating them to improve, drags down the entire team.
Nonaggression works!
Seriously, I haven't the slightest idea what the author's intent is.
The title made it sound like there would be some great revelation. That some rockstar, superhero, wunderkind, bar-raiser was going to dazzle us with their superior insight.
But no. No such insight. Just whiny bitchieness.
I am so glad to be out of tech. It is all sizzle now, zero steak.
You're normally posting conservative views on here and this post of yours is a great example for others. What you did and what you experienced is "white guilt". Conservatives typically scream about how it doesn't exist, but there it is. It's not necessarily a good thing or a bad thing in my view so I'm not making a judgement on the response you took, just the reason you took it. You recognized your surroundings, the light bulb lit up over your head, and you adjusted practices accordingly. Thumbs up.
you sound republican
I have little love for the GOP either. Being leftist-light (embracing much of the Communist Manifesto, little of the Bill of Rights) is just one of several reasons why. (Posting from phone as AC 'cuz I'm too lazy to log in.)
The GOP being leftist-light in case that wasn't clear. I am socially conservative but lean strongly libertarian politically.