6 ms·

Its just amusing, in this thread everyone with critical thinking and skeptical is down voted, even if one expresses himself moderately. It shows how much of zea

Its just amusing, in this thread everyone with critical thinking and skeptical is down voted, even if one expresses himself moderately. It shows how much of zealots, Rust fanboys have become.

ben0x539 6y ago
Hm, is there some specific criticism of Rust you'd like to see discussed more? It's easy to get side-tracked in these "actually my language is better than your language" with everybody launching whole broadsides of arguments, so I wouldn't be surprised if some more subtle points get lost.
- planetis 6y ago
  eh, I don't partake in the usual "actually my language is better than your language" that comes up in all posts. I just don't like people going overboard with their claims, when they try to promote any PL really, and would appreciate more fact checking.
jedisct1 6y ago
This is the case every time there's a post about Rust.
fractionalhare 6y ago
Can you point to some specific comments like this? None of the top threads seem to show this, as of this writing it's mostly about thread versus process parallelism and which kinds of conditions require unsafe.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
nindalf 6y ago
The problem is that most people criticising Rust don't make the case very well. If you want to read good critique, I'd recommend this - https://matklad.github.io/2020/09/20/why-not-rust.html https://matklad.github.io/2020/09/20/why-not-rust.html. This post up-to-date, succinct and objective. And most pertinently, this critique was written by someone who genuinely loves programming in Rust. Shows you that Rust users aren't blinded to the faults of the language. You shouldn't think that Rust users are fanboys just because you see push back to low effort, low knowledge critiques.
- cambalache 6y ago
  > And most pertinently, this critique was written by someone who genuinely loves programming in Rust. That is putting the bar impossible high. I would expect most of the criticism to come from people who hate to program in Rust, which it is fine as long as the criticism is well argued.
  - nindalf 6y ago
    I'm not putting the bar high. I'm giving an example of people who love Rust criticising Rust. Person I replied to claimed that Rust fanboys didn't do this because they were zealots. That's not true, clearly. I've read a lot of criticism of Rust and most of it is from people who tried it for a weekend, couldn't understand the borrow checker and wrote some low quality criticism of it. If someone points out problems in that post, they are accused of zealotry and fanboyism. Read the post I linked. It covers all the issues and makes the strongest possible case against the language. Then tell me if you've ever seen one that is as negative, accurate and succinct as that one.
    - cambalache 6y ago
      > I'm not putting the bar high. I'm giving an example of people who love Rust criticising Rust. Person I replied to claimed that Rust fanboys didn't do this because they were zealots. That's not true, clearly But that was OP's point.If your best example of Rust lovers accepting criticism of the language is the existence of a critical article written by a Rust lover, that does no say anything. The bar is naively high if the best example you got of tolerance to criticism was a critical article made by a member of the "tribe". The implicit point is that those kind of articles will be the ones playing "soft ball" with the language,so any perceived tolerance to criticism is almost meaningless.
  - steveklabnik 6y ago
    You've got the contrapositive there. The claim was that folks who love Rust do not accept criticism of the language. Therefore, a criticism by someone who loves the language was presented, to show that claim was false. Your parent isn't saying that only folks who love Rust can criticize Rust.
junippor 6y ago
Not parent, but to me this one stood out. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26445167 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26445167
- cb321 6y ago
  Several posts by @pjmlp..(if they stay downvoted).
- cb321 6y ago
  And now one of mine https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26448822 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26448822 in a subthread where the other main commentor says the subthread is his favorite of this whole thread. There just might be something to this downvoting claim..
howinteresting 6y ago
Bothsidesism is unhelpful in technical discussions just as much as in politics. If you have specific critiques please share them. I have a number of specific critiques of Rust, chief being that APIs and implementations are bound too tightly. &[String] and &[&str] are logically similar but changing from one to the other in your implementation might mean a breaking API change.
- hctaw 6y ago
  fn func (slice: &[impl AsRef<str>]) { // ... }
  - howinteresting 6y ago
    * You have to remember to do that. * I was thinking return values. * Also you can't use that style in an enum definition if you want to return a custom enum.
    - hctaw 6y ago
      If you need api flexibility you use generics, and that is the way to be generic over types that refer to strs. I'm pretty sure this is in the book, and it's common enough that even someone who doesn't use rust full time (myself) knows it off the top of their head You can use impl Trait in returns, this is actually one of the reasons why that feature exists. And yes, you can use generics in an enum.
      - howinteresting 6y ago
        You have to expose the generic in the enum though. Rust doesn't have existential types at the moment.
      - pornel 6y ago
        I think it's a valid criticism. Ownership, mutability, and thread-safety are not easy to abstract over and hide as implementation details in Rust. It's a side effect of the fact that Rust actually cares about these and checks them strictly, but for users coming from eg Java that's a bit of a shock.
up2isomorphism 6y ago
I think it would a be very in interesting psychological study on the reason for this. The similar thing happens for some other languages, but never at the level of rust.

Its just amusing, in this thread everyone with critical thinking and skeptical is down voted, even if one expresses himself moderately. It shows how much of zealots, Rust fanboys have become.

ben0x539 6y ago

Hm, is there some specific criticism of Rust you'd like to see discussed more? It's easy to get side-tracked in these "actually my language is better than your language" with everybody launching whole broadsides of arguments, so I wouldn't be surprised if some more subtle points get lost.

planetis 6y ago
eh, I don't partake in the usual "actually my language is better than your language" that comes up in all posts. I just don't like people going overboard with their claims, when they try to promote any PL really, and would appreciate more fact checking.

jedisct1 6y ago

This is the case every time there's a post about Rust.

fractionalhare 6y ago

Can you point to some specific comments like this? None of the top threads seem to show this, as of this writing it's mostly about thread versus process parallelism and which kinds of conditions require unsafe.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

nindalf 6y ago

The problem is that most people criticising Rust don't make the case very well. If you want to read good critique, I'd recommend this - https://matklad.github.io/2020/09/20/why-not-rust.html https://matklad.github.io/2020/09/20/why-not-rust.html. This post up-to-date, succinct and objective. And most pertinently, this critique was written by someone who genuinely loves programming in Rust. Shows you that Rust users aren't blinded to the faults of the language. You shouldn't think that Rust users are fanboys just because you see push back to low effort, low knowledge critiques.

cambalache 6y ago
> And most pertinently, this critique was written by someone who genuinely loves programming in Rust. That is putting the bar impossible high. I would expect most of the criticism to come from people who hate to program in Rust, which it is fine as long as the criticism is well argued.
- nindalf 6y ago
  I'm not putting the bar high. I'm giving an example of people who love Rust criticising Rust. Person I replied to claimed that Rust fanboys didn't do this because they were zealots. That's not true, clearly. I've read a lot of criticism of Rust and most of it is from people who tried it for a weekend, couldn't understand the borrow checker and wrote some low quality criticism of it. If someone points out problems in that post, they are accused of zealotry and fanboyism. Read the post I linked. It covers all the issues and makes the strongest possible case against the language. Then tell me if you've ever seen one that is as negative, accurate and succinct as that one.
  - cambalache 6y ago
    > I'm not putting the bar high. I'm giving an example of people who love Rust criticising Rust. Person I replied to claimed that Rust fanboys didn't do this because they were zealots. That's not true, clearly But that was OP's point.If your best example of Rust lovers accepting criticism of the language is the existence of a critical article written by a Rust lover, that does no say anything. The bar is naively high if the best example you got of tolerance to criticism was a critical article made by a member of the "tribe". The implicit point is that those kind of articles will be the ones playing "soft ball" with the language,so any perceived tolerance to criticism is almost meaningless.
- steveklabnik 6y ago
  You've got the contrapositive there. The claim was that folks who love Rust do not accept criticism of the language. Therefore, a criticism by someone who loves the language was presented, to show that claim was false. Your parent isn't saying that only folks who love Rust can criticize Rust.

junippor 6y ago

Not parent, but to me this one stood out. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26445167 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26445167

cb321 6y ago
Several posts by @pjmlp..(if they stay downvoted).
cb321 6y ago
And now one of mine https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26448822 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26448822 in a subthread where the other main commentor says the subthread is his favorite of this whole thread. There just might be something to this downvoting claim..

howinteresting 6y ago

Bothsidesism is unhelpful in technical discussions just as much as in politics. If you have specific critiques please share them. I have a number of specific critiques of Rust, chief being that APIs and implementations are bound too tightly. &[String] and &[&str] are logically similar but changing from one to the other in your implementation might mean a breaking API change.

hctaw 6y ago
fn func (slice: &[impl AsRef<str>]) { // ... }
- howinteresting 6y ago
  * You have to remember to do that. * I was thinking return values. * Also you can't use that style in an enum definition if you want to return a custom enum.
  - hctaw 6y ago
    If you need api flexibility you use generics, and that is the way to be generic over types that refer to strs. I'm pretty sure this is in the book, and it's common enough that even someone who doesn't use rust full time (myself) knows it off the top of their head You can use impl Trait in returns, this is actually one of the reasons why that feature exists. And yes, you can use generics in an enum.
    - howinteresting 6y ago
      You have to expose the generic in the enum though. Rust doesn't have existential types at the moment.
    - pornel 6y ago
      I think it's a valid criticism. Ownership, mutability, and thread-safety are not easy to abstract over and hide as implementation details in Rust. It's a side effect of the fact that Rust actually cares about these and checks them strictly, but for users coming from eg Java that's a bit of a shock.

up2isomorphism 6y ago

I think it would a be very in interesting psychological study on the reason for this. The similar thing happens for some other languages, but never at the level of rust.