3 ms·

> defending new-shiny syndrome this is itself a negative phrasing for the phenomenon. For one thing, Rust isn't just shiny and new - it has actual benefits. D

by Chris2048 5y ago

> defending new-shiny syndrome this is itself a negative phrasing for the phenomenon. For one thing, Rust isn't just shiny and new - it has actual benefits. Depicting "a perpetual state of re-learning" as negative/positive omits whether or not the process is actually improving or not. > Maintaining and extending existing code in a known way depends how debt-inflicted it is. In any case, this article describes a new service, so there wouldn't be the same issue as extending existing services.

bovermyer 5y ago
There are cases - like a brand new service - where a new language or framework is a good idea. In some very rare cases, rewrites can also be a good idea. But choosing a new technology just because it's new and popular? Almost never a good idea.
- littlecranky67 5y ago
  Exactly. Remembering Scala? It had a lot of drag around 2010-2015 and everybody was like "this is going to replace Java everywhere". Now it is still alive, you will find some jobs, but career wise Java devs are in higher demand, and I don't think that'll change again.
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    Don't confuse popularity with hotness. The latter is the first derivative of the former. Rust is hot, but not popular. Scala is somewhat hot (was truly hot a couple years ago) and somewhat popular. Java is lame, but very popular. JavaScript is... a goddamn black hole.
- Chris2048 5y ago
  > But choosing a new technology just because it's new and popular? Sure, but the given example states that as assumption. IRL how is that determined. The article states: > Investigating, you find out that there’s no compelling business reason for the component to be written in Rust. Not much of a technical reason either but doesn't detail if that was based on (or in agreement with) the opinion of the senior engineer who implemented the service, or the opinion of the author (whose role isn't that clear). I'd also state that that while "choosing a new technology just because it's new" is bad (although could easily be a proxy for the features that the new thing actually brings - Rust isn't just a new rehash of existing languages, it brings unique features); "choosing a new technology just because it's popular" does have merit.
EdwardDiego 5y ago
Every technology has benefits - and costs. It's always a case of deciding if adopting it is going to be a net gain or loss.
mbrodersen 5y ago
Haskell has benefits as well. So you would be OK with somebody rewriting your Rust code in Haskell for example?
- Chris2048 5y ago
  C, C++ etc are similar wrt domain as Rust, maybe even go. Haskell isn't the same kind at all.

bovermyer 5y ago

There are cases - like a brand new service - where a new language or framework is a good idea. In some very rare cases, rewrites can also be a good idea. But choosing a new technology just because it's new and popular? Almost never a good idea.

littlecranky67 5y ago
Exactly. Remembering Scala? It had a lot of drag around 2010-2015 and everybody was like "this is going to replace Java everywhere". Now it is still alive, you will find some jobs, but career wise Java devs are in higher demand, and I don't think that'll change again.
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  Don't confuse popularity with hotness. The latter is the first derivative of the former. Rust is hot, but not popular. Scala is somewhat hot (was truly hot a couple years ago) and somewhat popular. Java is lame, but very popular. JavaScript is... a goddamn black hole.
Chris2048 5y ago
> But choosing a new technology just because it's new and popular? Sure, but the given example states that as assumption. IRL how is that determined. The article states: > Investigating, you find out that there’s no compelling business reason for the component to be written in Rust. Not much of a technical reason either but doesn't detail if that was based on (or in agreement with) the opinion of the senior engineer who implemented the service, or the opinion of the author (whose role isn't that clear). I'd also state that that while "choosing a new technology just because it's new" is bad (although could easily be a proxy for the features that the new thing actually brings - Rust isn't just a new rehash of existing languages, it brings unique features); "choosing a new technology just because it's popular" does have merit.

EdwardDiego 5y ago

Every technology has benefits - and costs. It's always a case of deciding if adopting it is going to be a net gain or loss.

mbrodersen 5y ago

Haskell has benefits as well. So you would be OK with somebody rewriting your Rust code in Haskell for example?

Chris2048 5y ago
C, C++ etc are similar wrt domain as Rust, maybe even go. Haskell isn't the same kind at all.