3 ms·

> Specifically, he says he doesn’t like “big idea” languages, and says that Rust is one of them. If that's the full scope of his technical argument then I don'

> Specifically, he says he doesn’t like “big idea” languages, and says that Rust is one of them. If that's the full scope of his technical argument then I don't see why it's a good idea for anyone to waste their time reading up on his vaporware language. I understand why the author feels the need to promote his work but his promotion angle and lack of technical arguments speaks for itself.

soggybutter 8y ago
That's not the full scope of his argument. His first video on the topic (roughly ~2 hours) details his motivations for tackling a new language, part of which was why existing languages don't solve the problem in his mind. Not liking big agenda languages was one of the over-arching statements he made. For Rust specifically he felt the safety guarantees and ergonomics actually got in the way too much. I believe there were also concerns that the "zero-cost" abstractions that Rust provides aren't actually zero-cost for all applications of the language.
naikrovek 8y ago
His rationale is well thought out and has lots of merit. His ideas of how programming should be contrast strongly with what is taught in schools and the workplace, which I think is why people continually challenge his views on programming. He is NOT an inexperienced developer. He has not been beaten down by asshole team leads in corporate environments for 2 decades and remains a free-thinker.
topspin 8y ago
His view of Rust is a little more nuanced then you're getting here. Back in 2014 when Jonathan Blow started talking about the reasons for making a new programming language he discussed several languages including Go, D and Rust and provided specific reasons why they didn't satisfy his view of what a language for game programming should be. During that talk he said at one point; "if we're all writing programs in Rust ten years from now then that's great because I think it'll be a lot better than C++." You should consider watching at least the first part of that talk. It made a splash at the time because there are several insights that people found provocative. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH9VCN6UkyQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH9VCN6UkyQ

soggybutter 8y ago

That's not the full scope of his argument. His first video on the topic (roughly ~2 hours) details his motivations for tackling a new language, part of which was why existing languages don't solve the problem in his mind. Not liking big agenda languages was one of the over-arching statements he made. For Rust specifically he felt the safety guarantees and ergonomics actually got in the way too much. I believe there were also concerns that the "zero-cost" abstractions that Rust provides aren't actually zero-cost for all applications of the language.

naikrovek 8y ago

His rationale is well thought out and has lots of merit. His ideas of how programming should be contrast strongly with what is taught in schools and the workplace, which I think is why people continually challenge his views on programming. He is NOT an inexperienced developer. He has not been beaten down by asshole team leads in corporate environments for 2 decades and remains a free-thinker.

topspin 8y ago

His view of Rust is a little more nuanced then you're getting here. Back in 2014 when Jonathan Blow started talking about the reasons for making a new programming language he discussed several languages including Go, D and Rust and provided specific reasons why they didn't satisfy his view of what a language for game programming should be. During that talk he said at one point; "if we're all writing programs in Rust ten years from now then that's great because I think it'll be a lot better than C++." You should consider watching at least the first part of that talk. It made a splash at the time because there are several insights that people found provocative. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH9VCN6UkyQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH9VCN6UkyQ