3 ms·

At the top of this thread, I set out a number of reasons why a) you are not "fighting a language" by using Rust or Go or Haskell or whatever - in fact you are

by geofft 5y ago

At the top of this thread, I set out a number of reasons why a) you are not "fighting a language" by using Rust or Go or Haskell or whatever - in fact you are more able to focus on the problem you want to solve b) there are many reasons to use such a language, not just security, and all the things you mention - correctness, performance, development velocity, modularity, good design, and robustness to new requirements - are aided by features in newer languages 'pdimitar is making a reasonable argument and your dismissal of it as arrogance is uncalled for. I would encourage you to reread both of those comments carefully.

jstimpfle 5y ago
> 'pdimitar is making a reasonable argument and your dismissal of it as arrogance is uncalled for. I would encourage you to reread both of those comments carefully. ... No? It was clearly bordering into personal attack territory, suggesting lack of experience or intelligence as a reason for supposedly not seeing something obvious. > there are many reasons to use such a language, not just security, and all the things you mention - correctness, performance, development velocity, modularity, good design, and robustness to new requirements - are aided by features in newer languages Just... no? For example, more features => less orthogonal features => less interopability, worse modularity. You can see this easily for example when C++ programmers construct 5 versions of trivial APIs (like function/method signatures). As you wrap everything in more and more complicated types - types that do more than just hold data, like allocating memory, constructing, moving ownership, thread synchronization, being optional, offering various implementations for various traits, and so on... stuff is simply less interoperable. Also, many programming languages, like C++, Swift, Rust, Haskell... are not exactly known for their build speeds. Haskell for example in my case, I've tried really hard to like it for quite some time, but never felt productive in it except for end-in-itself kind of mind games trying to (unsuccessfully) boost my ego. One of the last things I remember trying with it is building a plain OpenGL Program (like, Tetris level) and I can remember the build for this single file program taking 10 (or was it 40?) seconds, on each and every incremental change in a program that was a couple hundred lines. Rust I've never touched, except one stint where I unsuccessfully tried to build a high-profile project, finding in the end that it was mostly snakeoil (after literally compiling 500 dependent packages). Just some real world examples...

by geofft 5y ago

jstimpfle 5y ago

> 'pdimitar is making a reasonable argument and your dismissal of it as arrogance is uncalled for. I would encourage you to reread both of those comments carefully. ... No? It was clearly bordering into personal attack territory, suggesting lack of experience or intelligence as a reason for supposedly not seeing something obvious. > there are many reasons to use such a language, not just security, and all the things you mention - correctness, performance, development velocity, modularity, good design, and robustness to new requirements - are aided by features in newer languages Just... no? For example, more features => less orthogonal features => less interopability, worse modularity. You can see this easily for example when C++ programmers construct 5 versions of trivial APIs (like function/method signatures). As you wrap everything in more and more complicated types - types that do more than just hold data, like allocating memory, constructing, moving ownership, thread synchronization, being optional, offering various implementations for various traits, and so on... stuff is simply less interoperable. Also, many programming languages, like C++, Swift, Rust, Haskell... are not exactly known for their build speeds. Haskell for example in my case, I've tried really hard to like it for quite some time, but never felt productive in it except for end-in-itself kind of mind games trying to (unsuccessfully) boost my ego. One of the last things I remember trying with it is building a plain OpenGL Program (like, Tetris level) and I can remember the build for this single file program taking 10 (or was it 40?) seconds, on each and every incremental change in a program that was a couple hundred lines. Rust I've never touched, except one stint where I unsuccessfully tried to build a high-profile project, finding in the end that it was mostly snakeoil (after literally compiling 500 dependent packages). Just some real world examples...