5 ms·

> I wouldn’t be shocked if this was all some conspiracy by Google and Microsoft to make a personal computing unusable so that everyone has to use their cloud of

by Cyph0n 5y ago

> I wouldn’t be shocked if this was all some conspiracy by Google and Microsoft to make a personal computing unusable so that everyone has to use their cloud offerings. So you would rather believe in a ridiculous conspiracy than admit that large companies might just be choosing Rust for some valid reasons. Got it.

sk1459 5y ago
They aren’t.
ncmncm 5y ago
Every sufficiently large company is using or has used literally any XYZ you can think of, whether Rust, Forth or even Haskell. Therefore, knowing that there are projects at Google, Facebook, IBM, and Apple using XYZ tells you less than nothing. People pointing at them are either deluded, or seek to delude. A small company that has become a success based on a whole XYZ stack may count for something, depending on how ambitious the company was, how hard it was to do, and how much competition they face. Lots of companies could succeed equally well with Rust, JS, Java, C#, Kotlin, Python, Ruby, Erlang, or Perl; those successes don't count. Lots more potter along, neither succeeding nor failing, exactly. Those don't count either, unless you want to give Rust credit for their not exactly failing. And, many fail. We are never told about those. They might well count, but there are a lot of ways to fail. It is ridiculous to believe in a Google conspiracy to outcompete Linux by getting it to incorporate Rust, because a conspiracy requires a crime, and that would not be one. But anyway Google doesn't have that much influence.
- Cyph0n 5y ago
  Firstly, I disagree with your argument about language adoption being irrelevant. When a language is picked up by a serious player, it helps signal to other users and companies that there might be practical benefits to using the language. Two good examples that come to mind are Erlang/WhatsApp and OCaml/Jane Street. Secondly, there is a huge difference between a language being used in general and a language being used for serious, visible projects within a company. Think: writing a small utility in Zig at company X vs. rewriting the backend of a core product in Zig and pointing to measurable gains in performance and reliability. > It is ridiculous to believe in a Google conspiracy to outcompete Linux by getting it to incorporate Rust [..] Great, but you should be telling that to the user I was replying to.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    I did not say language adoption is irrelevant. The examples you cite are exactly the kind I spelled out as being possibly relevant. So, you are agreeing me while saying you don't. Similarly: you then agree that "BigCo uses XYZ" is, in fact, not compelling. A big company betting its future on XYZ would count, but no big company does that. Betting a substantial new business unit on XYZ could count, but that is not cited as "BigCo uses XYZ", that is "BigCo relies on XYZ for UnitX to succeed", a possibly stronger statement, according as how important UnitX is to BigCo. Calling a claim ridiculous needs reasons why it is ridiculous, which I supplied, and you did not.
    - Cyph0n 5y ago
      No, I said that there is a difference between using a language and using it in a core product or area within the company. In the case of Rust, it is already seeing use in critical areas within several of the large tech companies. This is an excellent signal - in fact, it’s a much better signal than a small company relying on Rust exclusively.
      - jorangreef 5y ago
        I find that a better signal is simply the quality of the tool or technology. It's like surfing. Some people want to see hundreds of surfers on the wave before they start paddling out. That's fine. There's nothing wrong with that. But I personally believe that a better way to surf, especially when it comes to technology which tends to have short cycles, is to learn how to spot the wave as it builds, while it's still a swell, before it breaks. I've seen time and again that there's incredible value to be had if you can learn how to do that. One of the best examples of this value being that you're able to hire really talented people, because they form the critical mass at the beginning of a successful wave. Once the larger corporates come in, this advantage disappears.
        Cyph0n 5y ago
        I think the challenge would be in defining "quality" in a way that allows you to compare between multiple different technologies. If the definition ends up aligning with what large companies look for when adopting a new technology, then the signal ends up being the same. I definitely agree with the notion that the early adopter group is more often than not more talented than average. But, I'm sure companies also take this into account when deciding whether or not to pick a new technology.

by Cyph0n 5y ago

sk1459 5y ago

They aren’t.

ncmncm 5y ago

Every sufficiently large company is using or has used literally any XYZ you can think of, whether Rust, Forth or even Haskell. Therefore, knowing that there are projects at Google, Facebook, IBM, and Apple using XYZ tells you less than nothing. People pointing at them are either deluded, or seek to delude. A small company that has become a success based on a whole XYZ stack may count for something, depending on how ambitious the company was, how hard it was to do, and how much competition they face. Lots of companies could succeed equally well with Rust, JS, Java, C#, Kotlin, Python, Ruby, Erlang, or Perl; those successes don't count. Lots more potter along, neither succeeding nor failing, exactly. Those don't count either, unless you want to give Rust credit for their not exactly failing. And, many fail. We are never told about those. They might well count, but there are a lot of ways to fail. It is ridiculous to believe in a Google conspiracy to outcompete Linux by getting it to incorporate Rust, because a conspiracy requires a crime, and that would not be one. But anyway Google doesn't have that much influence.

Cyph0n 5y ago
Firstly, I disagree with your argument about language adoption being irrelevant. When a language is picked up by a serious player, it helps signal to other users and companies that there might be practical benefits to using the language. Two good examples that come to mind are Erlang/WhatsApp and OCaml/Jane Street. Secondly, there is a huge difference between a language being used in general and a language being used for serious, visible projects within a company. Think: writing a small utility in Zig at company X vs. rewriting the backend of a core product in Zig and pointing to measurable gains in performance and reliability. > It is ridiculous to believe in a Google conspiracy to outcompete Linux by getting it to incorporate Rust [..] Great, but you should be telling that to the user I was replying to.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  I did not say language adoption is irrelevant. The examples you cite are exactly the kind I spelled out as being possibly relevant. So, you are agreeing me while saying you don't. Similarly: you then agree that "BigCo uses XYZ" is, in fact, not compelling. A big company betting its future on XYZ would count, but no big company does that. Betting a substantial new business unit on XYZ could count, but that is not cited as "BigCo uses XYZ", that is "BigCo relies on XYZ for UnitX to succeed", a possibly stronger statement, according as how important UnitX is to BigCo. Calling a claim ridiculous needs reasons why it is ridiculous, which I supplied, and you did not.
  - Cyph0n 5y ago
    No, I said that there is a difference between using a language and using it in a core product or area within the company. In the case of Rust, it is already seeing use in critical areas within several of the large tech companies. This is an excellent signal - in fact, it’s a much better signal than a small company relying on Rust exclusively.
    - jorangreef 5y ago
      I find that a better signal is simply the quality of the tool or technology. It's like surfing. Some people want to see hundreds of surfers on the wave before they start paddling out. That's fine. There's nothing wrong with that. But I personally believe that a better way to surf, especially when it comes to technology which tends to have short cycles, is to learn how to spot the wave as it builds, while it's still a swell, before it breaks. I've seen time and again that there's incredible value to be had if you can learn how to do that. One of the best examples of this value being that you're able to hire really talented people, because they form the critical mass at the beginning of a successful wave. Once the larger corporates come in, this advantage disappears.
      - Cyph0n 5y ago
        I think the challenge would be in defining "quality" in a way that allows you to compare between multiple different technologies. If the definition ends up aligning with what large companies look for when adopting a new technology, then the signal ends up being the same. I definitely agree with the notion that the early adopter group is more often than not more talented than average. But, I'm sure companies also take this into account when deciding whether or not to pick a new technology.