4 ms·

"systems" is an overloaded term and I wish Rustaceans would stop using it or add some qualifiers to manage the ambiguity. I mean, GoodbyeEarl says it right ther

"systems" is an overloaded term and I wish Rustaceans would stop using it or add some qualifiers to manage the ambiguity. I mean, GoodbyeEarl says it right there: You can write a system in any language right? Sure, if you're a kernel developer (or rust user) then you might know what "systems language" means more precisely and that phrase makes it easier for you to communicate with other kernel developers, but it loses its' value as a "distinct meaningful element of speech" (define: word) when the context includes almost anyone else. Hell, even the definition of "System programming language" on Wikipedia[1] is ambiguous enough that many GC'd or even scripting languages would fit it. So lets stop using just bare "systems language" to describe rust. It deserves better. Newcomers faceplanting into the 10-story granite wall that is the borrow checker is bad enough, there's no reason they should be confused by the tagline on the homepage. You can write a system in any language right? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_programming_language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_programming_language

kbenson 10y ago
> Hell, even the definition of "System programming language" on Wikipedia[1] is ambiguous enough that many GC'd or even scripting languages would fit it. And the definition of race car is ambiguous enough that you can take your 70's pinto onto the track if you want. In some contexts that might even be entirely acceptable. But if you look at the current uses of the term and what it applies to, and why, it becomes fairly obvious what class of vehicles it's referring to. There are, of course, more specific terms (Indy, Nascar, Formula 1, Rally) for more specific meaning. If someone says they are building a race car, you have a pretty good idea that they are building a vehicle to compete in a race, and speed and handling are important, but specific details might change depending on the type of racing. > Newcomers faceplanting into the 10-story granite wall that is the borrow checker is bad enough, there's no reason they should be confused by the tagline on the homepage. Then again, should newcomers come under the impression it's as easy as Python or JavaScript and when they hit that brick wall think it's just themselves, or that the language is poorly designed because it isn't as accessible? Systems language is probably the closest thing I can think of that approximates what to expect out of languages in this category. More explanation might be nice, but I think systems language signals the right things for people that know the term, or are willing to look it up.
- lmm 10y ago
  > If someone says they are building a race car, you have a pretty good idea that they are building a vehicle to compete in a race, and speed and handling are important, but specific details might change depending on the type of racing. Right, but there's nothing like that for a "system programming language". What does that tell me? I might assume it meant manual memory management or a language suitable for writing a kernel, but the Go people call that a "system programming language" even though neither of those things applies.
  - vertex-four 10y ago
    I've always argued that Go is wrong for calling itself a systems programming language. Unfortunately, entities with enough clout can single-handedly redefine language that has specific meaning to a minority of people, but where most people have no need for that language.
    - infogulch 10y ago
      I wouldn't disagree with this. But the golang.org website doesn't mention "system" on the homepage, or documents page. You have to go all the way to reading the spec to see the first (and only) mention of Go describing itself as: > a general-purpose language designed with systems programming in mind And I'm not sure this definition is actually unrepresentative. Contrast this with rust-lang.org where "system" is the fourth word on the homepage. People like to blame Go for people being confused about what "systems language" means, but it seems to me like this is just poor branding on Rust's part.
      - dbaupp 10y ago
        Go rolled back a lot of their use of the systems programming label, E.g. the first version of the website http://web.archive.org/web/20091111073232/Http://golang.org http://web.archive.org/web/20091111073232/Http://golang.org has it in the heading.
        10y ago

kbenson 10y ago

> Hell, even the definition of "System programming language" on Wikipedia[1] is ambiguous enough that many GC'd or even scripting languages would fit it. And the definition of race car is ambiguous enough that you can take your 70's pinto onto the track if you want. In some contexts that might even be entirely acceptable. But if you look at the current uses of the term and what it applies to, and why, it becomes fairly obvious what class of vehicles it's referring to. There are, of course, more specific terms (Indy, Nascar, Formula 1, Rally) for more specific meaning. If someone says they are building a race car, you have a pretty good idea that they are building a vehicle to compete in a race, and speed and handling are important, but specific details might change depending on the type of racing. > Newcomers faceplanting into the 10-story granite wall that is the borrow checker is bad enough, there's no reason they should be confused by the tagline on the homepage. Then again, should newcomers come under the impression it's as easy as Python or JavaScript and when they hit that brick wall think it's just themselves, or that the language is poorly designed because it isn't as accessible? Systems language is probably the closest thing I can think of that approximates what to expect out of languages in this category. More explanation might be nice, but I think systems language signals the right things for people that know the term, or are willing to look it up.

lmm 10y ago
> If someone says they are building a race car, you have a pretty good idea that they are building a vehicle to compete in a race, and speed and handling are important, but specific details might change depending on the type of racing. Right, but there's nothing like that for a "system programming language". What does that tell me? I might assume it meant manual memory management or a language suitable for writing a kernel, but the Go people call that a "system programming language" even though neither of those things applies.
- vertex-four 10y ago
  I've always argued that Go is wrong for calling itself a systems programming language. Unfortunately, entities with enough clout can single-handedly redefine language that has specific meaning to a minority of people, but where most people have no need for that language.
  - infogulch 10y ago
    I wouldn't disagree with this. But the golang.org website doesn't mention "system" on the homepage, or documents page. You have to go all the way to reading the spec to see the first (and only) mention of Go describing itself as: > a general-purpose language designed with systems programming in mind And I'm not sure this definition is actually unrepresentative. Contrast this with rust-lang.org where "system" is the fourth word on the homepage. People like to blame Go for people being confused about what "systems language" means, but it seems to me like this is just poor branding on Rust's part.
    - dbaupp 10y ago
      Go rolled back a lot of their use of the systems programming label, E.g. the first version of the website http://web.archive.org/web/20091111073232/Http://golang.org http://web.archive.org/web/20091111073232/Http://golang.org has it in the heading.
      - 10y ago