4 ms·
I don’t think it takes bad faith to come to GP’s conclusion. Further, it implies a great deal of superiority for you to assume that someone who does not like/en
by throwaway17_17 5y ago
I don’t think it takes bad faith to come to GP’s conclusion. Further, it implies a great deal of superiority for you to assume that someone who does not like/enjoy the restrictions of a language does not ‘fully [appreciate]’ the supposed benefits of those restrictions. I, for one, do not enjoy or value the restrictions (or underlying semantic concept) of ownership in Rust. It just means that I don’t enjoy it, I understand the benefits which are claimed to exist for adopting the Rust-centric view of programming. I just don’t think they are worthwhile for me. I’m not really disagreeing with the point you make about language designers intention, I doubt they set out to inflict misery on users, but your assumption about not understanding some alleged benefit is a bridge too far.
- hackerfromthefu 5y agoThe point is not whether they are worthwhile to you, but to the problem space the program solves. Further that includes the context of the organisation/developer that will own it going forward.