3 ms·

As someone who's spent the last few years writing a 170K line Rust project ... I consider it entrenched! I stand by that blog post, though I recognise it's con

by roca 6y ago

As someone who's spent the last few years writing a 170K line Rust project ... I consider it entrenched! I stand by that blog post, though I recognise it's controversial. I think Rust clearly qualifies as "worth the cost of a new language". There simply wasn't, and still isn't, any other serious contender for safe GC-free systems programming. New contenders will arise but in the meantime lots of projects are doing safe systems programming that without Rust would have been done in C or C++ and would have had to be unsafe.

cxr 6y ago
Even if the benefits are "worth the cost of a new language", is using the new language worth the cost of it being Rust?
- roca 6y ago
  You have not made your argument clear. Are you questioning whether Rust is simply not good enough to be worth using by anyone? Lots of people, including me, have judged that is worth using for us, both before we tried it and after we've put Rust projects into production. (BTW once again you have implied there is something deeply wrong with Rust that cancels out its benefits, without saying what that might be. That is annoying.)
  - cxr 6y ago
    You're not seeking answers; in place of anything that would lead to a better understanding, you're asking the questions that make it easier to defend the position you've staked out. (Great job, Brendan!) If someone released a memory-safe, highly concurrent, systems-oriented version of INTERCAL, you recognize that someone might look at that and say, "Gee, I don't think that's really worth using", and the comment's lack of detail doesn't nullify the substance of what makes the comment true or not? And an opponent could approach in the same way you are now, with the primary goal of "beating" the other participant—by making it burdensome to respond—and by all appearances do so? It's not my job to painstakingly prepare a perfect, incontrovertible response for a hostile adversary, particularly since absolutely nothing would come of that time investment. If your idea of success is the sound of all your colleagues telling yourselves that you won the conversation and you're on the right track and nothing needs to change because there really aren't any issues... then, hey, that's just fine.
    - roca 6y ago
      You asserted that Rust should be thrown away, but decline to provide any reasons why you think that. So yeah, in the absence of any supporting argument, I reject your claim, and so would any other reasonable person who doesn't already believe it. You have added nothing to the discussion.
      - cxr 6y ago
        > You asserted that Rust should be thrown away, but decline to provide any reasons why you think that. That simply isn't true. > I reject your claim That's fine.

by roca 6y ago

cxr 6y ago

Even if the benefits are "worth the cost of a new language", is using the new language worth the cost of it being Rust?

roca 6y ago
You have not made your argument clear. Are you questioning whether Rust is simply not good enough to be worth using by anyone? Lots of people, including me, have judged that is worth using for us, both before we tried it and after we've put Rust projects into production. (BTW once again you have implied there is something deeply wrong with Rust that cancels out its benefits, without saying what that might be. That is annoying.)
- cxr 6y ago
  You're not seeking answers; in place of anything that would lead to a better understanding, you're asking the questions that make it easier to defend the position you've staked out. (Great job, Brendan!) If someone released a memory-safe, highly concurrent, systems-oriented version of INTERCAL, you recognize that someone might look at that and say, "Gee, I don't think that's really worth using", and the comment's lack of detail doesn't nullify the substance of what makes the comment true or not? And an opponent could approach in the same way you are now, with the primary goal of "beating" the other participant—by making it burdensome to respond—and by all appearances do so? It's not my job to painstakingly prepare a perfect, incontrovertible response for a hostile adversary, particularly since absolutely nothing would come of that time investment. If your idea of success is the sound of all your colleagues telling yourselves that you won the conversation and you're on the right track and nothing needs to change because there really aren't any issues... then, hey, that's just fine.
  - roca 6y ago
    You asserted that Rust should be thrown away, but decline to provide any reasons why you think that. So yeah, in the absence of any supporting argument, I reject your claim, and so would any other reasonable person who doesn't already believe it. You have added nothing to the discussion.
    - cxr 6y ago
      > You asserted that Rust should be thrown away, but decline to provide any reasons why you think that. That simply isn't true. > I reject your claim That's fine.