4 ms·

Again, I'm not talking about performance. I'm talking about low level safety and the difficulties in achieving that in any meaningful way. I wasn't talking abou

Again, I'm not talking about performance. I'm talking about low level safety and the difficulties in achieving that in any meaningful way. I wasn't talking about just Rust when I said abstractions cost you speed. It was a (perhaps unclear) general statement about programming. As an aside, unsafe rust is faster than safe rust for a lot of cases. I re-read what I wrote and I fail to see where I attacked or even (God forbid) criticized Rust. So far IME, the rust community is extremely defensive and antagonistic to anyone they perceive to have made the slightest criticism. It's immature and irritating. It's the only thing that really turns me off from fully embracing it. I can't participate in a community that's fundamentally hostile to skepticism.

kbenson 11y ago
> Again, I'm not talking about performance. But previously you said "because it can't be safe at such a low level without a performance penalty" which clearly implies performance is part of your argument. This is what I was talking about in my other reply, which mentioned "without narrowing the scope or clarifying your intent". > I re-read what I wrote and I fail to see where I attacked or even (God forbid) criticized Rust. This is more about backing up claims with concrete examples. pcwalton is a Rust developer, I'm sure he would be very happy to hear a specific shortcoming he wasn't aware of, or was undervaluing. That's how improvements are made. > So far IME, the rust community is extremely defensive and antagonistic to anyone they perceive to have made the slightest criticism. It's immature and irritating. It's the only thing that really turns me off from fully embracing it. There may be some of that, but I also see a lot of rust community members trying to explain where people's assumptions are wrong, and it being taken as being antagonistic. The fact that Rust has some compile time checking that could actually make some of the low-level code faster is what I think is being alluded to by pcwalton. Of course there will be things that rust won't catch, and will need to be done in both C and rust, and there's things that other languages may catch that rust doesn't and vice-versa. > I can't participate in a community that's fundamentally hostile to skepticism. That's an interesting way to put it. You've made assertions, and when asked for clarification or evidence, began your response by calling the other commentor's motives into question (is it a reasoned response, or was it overly emotional because they were "defensive"). Asking for evidence of assertions is skepticism, and to balk in face of requests to do so is actually what I would consider being defensive. To be absolutely clear, I don't think you would have been downvoted if you didn't start your reply with "A little defensive, maybe?". I didn't downvote you, but my initial assumption was that the downvoting I saw was because of that.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - kbenson 11y ago
    Well, I'm by no means part of the rust community, so don't let anything I say reflect upon them. That said, how else do you correct someone in the case their statements are provably false? Edit: Whoops, "probably" was supposed to be "provably" :/
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - kbenson 11y ago
    > Notice how you're defending criticisms I never made. I'm not defending anything, You didn't supply clarification of your point. You were asked for clarification, and provided someone else's experience (anecdotal) counteracting claims (which weren't even anecdotal, they were unsupported assertions), and you started out as classifying that response as defensive. > notice how you assume I don't know the difference between static analysis and compile-time safety. I said "I also see a lot of rust community members trying to explain where people's assumptions are wrong" immediately prior to that. I thought it was obvious I was talking in the general sense. I don't know what you do and don't know, but I'm not sure why you think it's valid to be upset because someone assumes this one way or the other (which to be clear, didn't happen here) when you've shown little or no evidence yet as to what you do or don't know about it. It may be the rust community stereotyping others, but without stats as to whether the people the stereotype has been applied to have it applied correctly it's hard to know whether it's useful or harmful, regardless of how it applies to you in particular. > Notice how you assume that I must be generally uninformed or less intelligent because complete faith in Rust's importance is a self-evident truth. Not knowing something doesn't make someone less intelligent. If you are conversing under the assumption that everyone will assume you know at least the same amount as them about every topic that is brought up, else you have right to be offended, I'm not sure how we can continue. That's not an environment I want to have a discussion in. > Well, now that's it's happening to me personally vs just reading it. Fuck this community. It's collectively a socially inept nightmare. I'm done with caring about Rust. I was really enjoying it. After today and Reddit, I can't take anymore of this smug bullshit. All that's happened here is you made statements and refused to back them up while at the same time you called someone else's motives into question for asking for clarification. I think it's obvious what is going on, but I'm not in your shoes. I don't think people aren't trying to be assholes you you (at least I'm not, or not trying to be one), and while you may be upset, I hope you don't leave for good. however you've interpreted my comments, please be aware that not a single one was written with the intent to upset you, or call into question your character or intelligence in any way. I can only point towards my own experience, here and elsewhere, where my state of mind greatly influenced how I read a statement and any replies to me with regard to that conversation, and think that possibly the same thing is happening here with you. That itself may come across as a smug asshole-ish thing to say depending on how you interpret it, or even my assumption that my observations apply to you. All I can do is state that my desire to be helpful after your prior statement is sincere.

kbenson 11y ago

> Again, I'm not talking about performance. But previously you said "because it can't be safe at such a low level without a performance penalty" which clearly implies performance is part of your argument. This is what I was talking about in my other reply, which mentioned "without narrowing the scope or clarifying your intent". > I re-read what I wrote and I fail to see where I attacked or even (God forbid) criticized Rust. This is more about backing up claims with concrete examples. pcwalton is a Rust developer, I'm sure he would be very happy to hear a specific shortcoming he wasn't aware of, or was undervaluing. That's how improvements are made. > So far IME, the rust community is extremely defensive and antagonistic to anyone they perceive to have made the slightest criticism. It's immature and irritating. It's the only thing that really turns me off from fully embracing it. There may be some of that, but I also see a lot of rust community members trying to explain where people's assumptions are wrong, and it being taken as being antagonistic. The fact that Rust has some compile time checking that could actually make some of the low-level code faster is what I think is being alluded to by pcwalton. Of course there will be things that rust won't catch, and will need to be done in both C and rust, and there's things that other languages may catch that rust doesn't and vice-versa. > I can't participate in a community that's fundamentally hostile to skepticism. That's an interesting way to put it. You've made assertions, and when asked for clarification or evidence, began your response by calling the other commentor's motives into question (is it a reasoned response, or was it overly emotional because they were "defensive"). Asking for evidence of assertions is skepticism, and to balk in face of requests to do so is actually what I would consider being defensive. To be absolutely clear, I don't think you would have been downvoted if you didn't start your reply with "A little defensive, maybe?". I didn't downvote you, but my initial assumption was that the downvoting I saw was because of that.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- kbenson 11y ago
  Well, I'm by no means part of the rust community, so don't let anything I say reflect upon them. That said, how else do you correct someone in the case their statements are provably false? Edit: Whoops, "probably" was supposed to be "provably" :/
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- kbenson 11y ago
  > Notice how you're defending criticisms I never made. I'm not defending anything, You didn't supply clarification of your point. You were asked for clarification, and provided someone else's experience (anecdotal) counteracting claims (which weren't even anecdotal, they were unsupported assertions), and you started out as classifying that response as defensive. > notice how you assume I don't know the difference between static analysis and compile-time safety. I said "I also see a lot of rust community members trying to explain where people's assumptions are wrong" immediately prior to that. I thought it was obvious I was talking in the general sense. I don't know what you do and don't know, but I'm not sure why you think it's valid to be upset because someone assumes this one way or the other (which to be clear, didn't happen here) when you've shown little or no evidence yet as to what you do or don't know about it. It may be the rust community stereotyping others, but without stats as to whether the people the stereotype has been applied to have it applied correctly it's hard to know whether it's useful or harmful, regardless of how it applies to you in particular. > Notice how you assume that I must be generally uninformed or less intelligent because complete faith in Rust's importance is a self-evident truth. Not knowing something doesn't make someone less intelligent. If you are conversing under the assumption that everyone will assume you know at least the same amount as them about every topic that is brought up, else you have right to be offended, I'm not sure how we can continue. That's not an environment I want to have a discussion in. > Well, now that's it's happening to me personally vs just reading it. Fuck this community. It's collectively a socially inept nightmare. I'm done with caring about Rust. I was really enjoying it. After today and Reddit, I can't take anymore of this smug bullshit. All that's happened here is you made statements and refused to back them up while at the same time you called someone else's motives into question for asking for clarification. I think it's obvious what is going on, but I'm not in your shoes. I don't think people aren't trying to be assholes you you (at least I'm not, or not trying to be one), and while you may be upset, I hope you don't leave for good. however you've interpreted my comments, please be aware that not a single one was written with the intent to upset you, or call into question your character or intelligence in any way. I can only point towards my own experience, here and elsewhere, where my state of mind greatly influenced how I read a statement and any replies to me with regard to that conversation, and think that possibly the same thing is happening here with you. That itself may come across as a smug asshole-ish thing to say depending on how you interpret it, or even my assumption that my observations apply to you. All I can do is state that my desire to be helpful after your prior statement is sincere.