2 ms·
This is like telling green energy advocates that oil isn’t going away. Everyone knows already. When engaging people consider not assuming maximum naïveté
by gameswithgo 5y ago
This is like telling green energy advocates that oil isn’t going away. Everyone knows already. When engaging people consider not assuming maximum naïveté
- turminal 5y agoCoincidentally, both green energy advocates and Rust advocates tend to have fairly naïve expectations. I consider myself a green energy advocate and would be glad to see c++ go away but I find naïveté a huge obstacle on the path to both of those goals.
- benreesman 5y agoComparing C++ to fossil fuels and Rust to green energy is the most Rust thing ever. Green energy as a jihad is understandable, if maybe counter-productive at times. Rust as jihad makes no sense to me. It’s nifty: exposing mainstream programmers to the Maybe monad, and limited type classes, and cheap (not free!) bounds/use-after-free/double-delete checking is cool. Web browsers and HTTP servers and sshd servers and maybe even shells should probably be written in Rust. But a sense of safety coming from rustc is easy to over-indulge in: lots of really scary attacks are perfectly possible against Rust programs. It kills 90’s-style stack smashes dead, no doubt and in that sense it’s an improvement, but people get pwned lots of interesting ways now, and there will be a headline CVE in a rust program, count on it.