8 ms·

Probably not, but it's a question of degree. The projects I work on don't get monthly requests to drop everything and rewrite them in Haskell/Clojure/Go but we

by t8sr 5y ago

Probably not, but it's a question of degree. The projects I work on don't get monthly requests to drop everything and rewrite them in Haskell/Clojure/Go but we do get them for Rust. An anecdote: I recently opened a position on my team, and got two applicants on the same day who ignored the project description, and basically said we should hire them to tell us how everything we do could be better if we rewrote multiple projects in Rust. Of course it's completely possible for a programming language to be both (A) really well-designed and (B) have annoying people among its community. I suspect that's the case here.

BiteCode_dev 5y ago
Every language that has a reputation of some kind purity in one or more characteristics (Haskell, Lisp, Rust) is bound to attract some people that values purity over practicality. It's not the case of the rust dev team, which seems very balanced. But I've met a few rust enthusiasts that match the worst of the fancy FP or Typing fan boys.
- HKH2 5y ago
  Those Haskell people do talk a lot about purity.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    Of their precious bodily fluids?
    - divs1210 5y ago
      Not sure why you're being downvoted. That is a brilliant reference to a brilliant movie.
zabatuvajdka 5y ago
I personally have language fatigue after playing with various languages over two decades. The thing I hate about rust is abbreviated keywords like “fn” and “mut” because it sounds like fricken mutt. A function is a function not a fn, and is it really so hard to type “mutable”? There’s more important things in life to worry about than rewriting codebases in language Z.
- brandmeyer 5y ago
  An old habit of mine: Avoid symbol-speaking or abbreviation-speaking. I verbalize "fn" as "function" and "mut" as "mutable" the same way I verbalize "std::unique_ptr" as "standard unique pointer" and not "stid unique pooter".
  - arethuza 5y ago
    How would you verbalize "=>" ? Edit: Fat arrow?
    - brandmeyer 5y ago
      "fat arrow" would just be symbol-speaking. Assuming you are referring to the match syntax in rust[1], I verbalize "PATTERN => EXPRESSION" as "on $PATTERN, do $EXPRESSION". I don't read code in English, even though I'm a native speaker. So its kindof a silly question: this would only come up when walking someone else through the code. I internally read code using data-flow and control-flow graphs. The written abbreviation is just shorthand for a specific type of graph vertex (or edge). [1] https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch18-01-all-the-places-for-patterns.html#match-arms https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch18-01-all-the-places-for-pa...
      - arethuza 5y ago
        I was more thinking of C# where "=>" is the closest thing I can think of to "function". There is Func<T> - that's a delegate type.
        mdoms 5y ago
        I verbalise that as "goes to". In the case of, say, things.Select(thing => thing.Stuff); I verbalise the brackets as "thing goes to thing dot stuff".
        vmladenov 5y ago

by t8sr 5y ago

BiteCode_dev 5y ago

Every language that has a reputation of some kind purity in one or more characteristics (Haskell, Lisp, Rust) is bound to attract some people that values purity over practicality. It's not the case of the rust dev team, which seems very balanced. But I've met a few rust enthusiasts that match the worst of the fancy FP or Typing fan boys.

HKH2 5y ago
Those Haskell people do talk a lot about purity.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  Of their precious bodily fluids?
  - divs1210 5y ago
    Not sure why you're being downvoted. That is a brilliant reference to a brilliant movie.

zabatuvajdka 5y ago

I personally have language fatigue after playing with various languages over two decades. The thing I hate about rust is abbreviated keywords like “fn” and “mut” because it sounds like fricken mutt. A function is a function not a fn, and is it really so hard to type “mutable”? There’s more important things in life to worry about than rewriting codebases in language Z.

brandmeyer 5y ago
An old habit of mine: Avoid symbol-speaking or abbreviation-speaking. I verbalize "fn" as "function" and "mut" as "mutable" the same way I verbalize "std::unique_ptr" as "standard unique pointer" and not "stid unique pooter".
- arethuza 5y ago
  How would you verbalize "=>" ? Edit: Fat arrow?
  - brandmeyer 5y ago
    "fat arrow" would just be symbol-speaking. Assuming you are referring to the match syntax in rust[1], I verbalize "PATTERN => EXPRESSION" as "on $PATTERN, do $EXPRESSION". I don't read code in English, even though I'm a native speaker. So its kindof a silly question: this would only come up when walking someone else through the code. I internally read code using data-flow and control-flow graphs. The written abbreviation is just shorthand for a specific type of graph vertex (or edge). [1] https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch18-01-all-the-places-for-patterns.html#match-arms https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch18-01-all-the-places-for-pa...
    - arethuza 5y ago
      I was more thinking of C# where "=>" is the closest thing I can think of to "function". There is Func<T> - that's a delegate type.
      - mdoms 5y ago
        I verbalise that as "goes to". In the case of, say, things.Select(thing => thing.Stuff); I verbalise the brackets as "thing goes to thing dot stuff".
        vmladenov 5y ago