5 ms·

I don't understand your argument. In 1982 C was a decade old and still very niche. In 1992 C++ was a decade old and still very niche. In 2002 Python were bot

I don't understand your argument. In 1982 C was a decade old and still very niche. In 1992 C++ was a decade old and still very niche. In 2002 Python were both about a decade old and very niche. In 2005 Javascript was a decade old and still very niche (only used on some webpages, the web was usable without javascript for the most part). I think it's safe to say that all of them went on to enjoy quite a bit of success/widespread use. Some languages take off really fast and go strong for a long time (php and java come to mind). Some languages take off really fast and disappear just as fast (scala, clojure). Some languages get big and have a long tail, fading into obscurity (tcl, perl). Some languages go through cycles of ascendancy and descendancy (FP languages come to mind for that). Dismissing a language because of it's adoption rate seems kinda silly - no one says "don't use python because it wasn't really popular til it had existed for over a decade".

ebruchez 5y ago
> Some languages take off really fast and disappear just as fast (scala, clojure). I don't know about Clojure but I don't think that Scala has "disappeared". The hype has subsided, certainly. I for one certainly hope that one of the best programming languages in existence doesn't disappear.
criddell 5y ago
Languages take off broadly because there's something compelling about them (and it isn't necessarily a technical reason). One of most compelling reasons for adopting Rust is memory safety and that may not be terribly compelling. The comment about it being over a decade old was mostly that it wasn't some new thing that people are unsure about where it can be used. It's mature and has been successful in some niches (and keep in mind that niches can be large).
- Ar-Curunir 5y ago
  How is memory safety not a compelling argument when we're literally in a thread about memory unsafety leading to security exploits?
  - lelanthran 5y ago
    > How is memory safety not a compelling argument when we're literally in a thread about memory unsafety leading to security exploits? The ratio of { memory-safety-bugs-in-code : bugs-in-code } is too small in many cases to warrant redoing the entire project. My last C (and C++) role: over the course of 3 years, a large C++ project had over 1000 bug reports closed, of which one turned out to be a memory safety issue that would have been prevented in Rust. My previous C position had a similar rate. It's hard to convince the company to throw a 5-person team at a rewrite project for 3 years just to avoid the bug that they got in the previous 3 years, in the process incurring new bugs. If you're the owner of a company, you'd dismiss anyone who tells you that you need to spend a few million redoing work already completed, with additional risk that the redone work will have new errors that were already fixed in the existing work.
    - kobebrookskC3 5y ago
      your code probably isn't worth attacking
      - lelanthran 5y ago
        > your code probably isn't worth attacking Maybe, maybe not. What bar do you set for "this product is worth attacking"? Because the product owners and the product users definitely thought that their product was valuable[1]. [1]The products in question were 1) Payment acquirer and processor, and 2) Munitions control software.
        kobebrookskC3 5y ago
        a product can be valuable without being worth attacking, like something that only runs on trusted inputs. the bar for software "worth attacking" for me is that there are people who are paid mainly to find exploits on it, and not just incidentally as a product of development.
        lelanthran 5y ago
- kobebrookskC3 5y ago
  idk, many large companies report about 70% of their security issues are due to memory unsafety. reducing your security bugs by a factor of 3 sounds pretty compelling to me...
  - criddell 5y ago
    Yeah, it's weird. I really don't know why Rust isn't more popular. Edit: I just read another comment you made about somebody's program not being worth attacking. I think you are on to something with that argument. Most software isn't worth attacking.

ebruchez 5y ago

> Some languages take off really fast and disappear just as fast (scala, clojure). I don't know about Clojure but I don't think that Scala has "disappeared". The hype has subsided, certainly. I for one certainly hope that one of the best programming languages in existence doesn't disappear.

criddell 5y ago

Languages take off broadly because there's something compelling about them (and it isn't necessarily a technical reason). One of most compelling reasons for adopting Rust is memory safety and that may not be terribly compelling. The comment about it being over a decade old was mostly that it wasn't some new thing that people are unsure about where it can be used. It's mature and has been successful in some niches (and keep in mind that niches can be large).

Ar-Curunir 5y ago
How is memory safety not a compelling argument when we're literally in a thread about memory unsafety leading to security exploits?
- lelanthran 5y ago
  > How is memory safety not a compelling argument when we're literally in a thread about memory unsafety leading to security exploits? The ratio of { memory-safety-bugs-in-code : bugs-in-code } is too small in many cases to warrant redoing the entire project. My last C (and C++) role: over the course of 3 years, a large C++ project had over 1000 bug reports closed, of which one turned out to be a memory safety issue that would have been prevented in Rust. My previous C position had a similar rate. It's hard to convince the company to throw a 5-person team at a rewrite project for 3 years just to avoid the bug that they got in the previous 3 years, in the process incurring new bugs. If you're the owner of a company, you'd dismiss anyone who tells you that you need to spend a few million redoing work already completed, with additional risk that the redone work will have new errors that were already fixed in the existing work.
  - kobebrookskC3 5y ago
    your code probably isn't worth attacking
    - lelanthran 5y ago
      > your code probably isn't worth attacking Maybe, maybe not. What bar do you set for "this product is worth attacking"? Because the product owners and the product users definitely thought that their product was valuable[1]. [1]The products in question were 1) Payment acquirer and processor, and 2) Munitions control software.
      - kobebrookskC3 5y ago
        a product can be valuable without being worth attacking, like something that only runs on trusted inputs. the bar for software "worth attacking" for me is that there are people who are paid mainly to find exploits on it, and not just incidentally as a product of development.
        lelanthran 5y ago
kobebrookskC3 5y ago
idk, many large companies report about 70% of their security issues are due to memory unsafety. reducing your security bugs by a factor of 3 sounds pretty compelling to me...
- criddell 5y ago
  Yeah, it's weird. I really don't know why Rust isn't more popular. Edit: I just read another comment you made about somebody's program not being worth attacking. I think you are on to something with that argument. Most software isn't worth attacking.