4 ms·

> But as the market exists right now, Rust developers are twice as expensive and the product they deliver is twice as bad. It's interesting how we have differe

> But as the market exists right now, Rust developers are twice as expensive and the product they deliver is twice as bad. It's interesting how we have different experiences regarding this. In my experience, it's usually the opposite. And I believe it's mostly because Rust lets you focus more on the problem you're solving, rather than thinking about dos and don'ts of the language. For example, most Rust projects (or products) seem to have much more polish than equivalent C++ projects (even for ones with years head start). By polish I mean both user experience and the developer experience when one works on the project. Also, adding user-facing (i.e. UX) polish to Rust projects requires less ahead-of-time planning in my experience. One reason is that when introducing new Rust code, there's less performance gotchas, and Rust code seems to compose more ergonomically than C++ code... Most of the time at least; there were times that Rust was frustrating. But I think less often probably, _and_ the frustration is compile-time, rather than runtime. Also Rust has a shorter feedback loop due to Rust's incremental compilation really helps mitigate the frustration, so you can iterate faster. And another is because I've always felt like refactoring Rust code (even with C++ experience than Rust) tends to be easier, and faster to refactor, and I feel bolder while doing it, if that makes sense? Simply because the compiler thinks about various categories of problem domains instead of me, and it tells me about them. Of course, it's never black and white with any of the above things I mentioned; the situation is grey in both ecosystems. But I think it's a much lighter shade of grey in the Rust space than in the C++ space. And as always, there's always exceptions on either side, too. EDIT: I quoted OP's full sentence, but then only addressed the last bit. I hopefully clarified in comments below that I wasn't talking about the first part. Sorry about that!

otabdeveloper4 5y ago
> In my experience, it's usually the opposite. Obviously your experience doesn't involve budgeting or hiring developers. Your subjective feelings about how nice or fast it is to write Rust code isn't what we're talking about here. The original poster claimed that Rust can save money by letting managers hire junior devs to replace senior C++ developers. This isn't true. Rust developers are much more expensive than C++ developers, and have vastly lower productivity. (No doubt because of their vastly inflated expectations; any Go/Python/PHP developer who upgrades to Rust suddenly thinks they are elite 10x programmers because they have a clue about performance now.)
- spoiler 5y ago
  > Obviously your experience doesn't involve budgeting or hiring developers. Ah, that is very true! :) I forgot to make clear in my comment that I wasn't referring to that bit at all. I only participated in the hiring/interview process, but that's as far as my hiring experience goes. > The original poster claimed that Rust can save money by letting managers hire junior devs to replace senior C++ developers. Ah, I didn't interpret it that way. I thought the point they wanted to get across was that it's easier to get the same for less—not in terms of monetary cost, but in terms of less mental effort with regards to context/knowledge about the language itself. But, the hiring point you're addressing can be inferred from their comment, too. I think I agree with you on that... It probably is "easier" to hire C++ developers, since there's an older and bigger market for them. I think Rust developers are in an interesting position right now that they're not as abundant as other developers, since Rust is probably still in "early adoption" stage. So they can use that as leverage in salary negotiations, maybe? But it also comes at a cost of a much smaller job market for them, too.
  - fisf 5y ago
    > I think Rust developers are in an interesting position right now that they're not as abundant as other developers, since Rust is probably still in "early adoption" stage. So they can use that as leverage in salary negotiations, maybe? But it also comes at a cost of a much smaller job market for them, too. No, you are viewing that from a technological perspective - what you assume only holds if "Rust" was a requirement. If staffing a project is much harder (and maybe more expensive) when using Rust as language, then Rust will not be chosen if C++ is an option.
- lpapez 5y ago
  > The original poster claimed that Rust can save money by letting managers hire junior devs to replace senior C++ developers. This is not at all what I said, nor meant. I never said anything about the hiring market, but merely stated a personal observation why I think Senior C++ devs often dislike Rust.
  - ncmncm 5y ago

otabdeveloper4 5y ago

> In my experience, it's usually the opposite. Obviously your experience doesn't involve budgeting or hiring developers. Your subjective feelings about how nice or fast it is to write Rust code isn't what we're talking about here. The original poster claimed that Rust can save money by letting managers hire junior devs to replace senior C++ developers. This isn't true. Rust developers are much more expensive than C++ developers, and have vastly lower productivity. (No doubt because of their vastly inflated expectations; any Go/Python/PHP developer who upgrades to Rust suddenly thinks they are elite 10x programmers because they have a clue about performance now.)

spoiler 5y ago
> Obviously your experience doesn't involve budgeting or hiring developers. Ah, that is very true! :) I forgot to make clear in my comment that I wasn't referring to that bit at all. I only participated in the hiring/interview process, but that's as far as my hiring experience goes. > The original poster claimed that Rust can save money by letting managers hire junior devs to replace senior C++ developers. Ah, I didn't interpret it that way. I thought the point they wanted to get across was that it's easier to get the same for less—not in terms of monetary cost, but in terms of less mental effort with regards to context/knowledge about the language itself. But, the hiring point you're addressing can be inferred from their comment, too. I think I agree with you on that... It probably is "easier" to hire C++ developers, since there's an older and bigger market for them. I think Rust developers are in an interesting position right now that they're not as abundant as other developers, since Rust is probably still in "early adoption" stage. So they can use that as leverage in salary negotiations, maybe? But it also comes at a cost of a much smaller job market for them, too.
- fisf 5y ago
  > I think Rust developers are in an interesting position right now that they're not as abundant as other developers, since Rust is probably still in "early adoption" stage. So they can use that as leverage in salary negotiations, maybe? But it also comes at a cost of a much smaller job market for them, too. No, you are viewing that from a technological perspective - what you assume only holds if "Rust" was a requirement. If staffing a project is much harder (and maybe more expensive) when using Rust as language, then Rust will not be chosen if C++ is an option.
lpapez 5y ago
> The original poster claimed that Rust can save money by letting managers hire junior devs to replace senior C++ developers. This is not at all what I said, nor meant. I never said anything about the hiring market, but merely stated a personal observation why I think Senior C++ devs often dislike Rust.
- ncmncm 5y ago