3 ms·
Pretty uncharitable and somewhat harsh indictment from you IMO. There's a class of programmers / power users out there who are looking for products with less p
by pdimitar 4y ago
Pretty uncharitable and somewhat harsh indictment from you IMO.
There's a class of programmers / power users out there who are looking for products with less probability of memory security problems bundled in (as is the case by default with most C programs, sadly) -- and I am one of them.
I can't say I care about including the "Rust" word in the name of the product itself -- that's indeed a bit silly -- but I do insist on using Rust-written programs because as far as I am aware, the few servers I manage and monitor never once had a Rust program crash unexpectedly. These servers are ~19 months old at this point.
And as a guy periodically working with Rust as well, I am aware of its promises and guarantees and I have personally ascertained they are not imaginary and they do indeed work well. And I'll keep seeking out and using Rust-written software going forward as well.
(EDIT: It's fine to disagree but I can't argue with anonymous silent disagreements. Could you voice what you dislike about this comment, please?)
- cmrdporcupine 4y agoSure, fine, if that works for you, that's all good. FWIW I also make a living working in Rust right now. I still see broadly that most users don't care, nor should they. Quality speaks for itself. If Rust helps with that, that's fine, but in the long run it's overly techy branding. Of course this is an open source thing, so really geared to nerds, so there's that.
- pdimitar 4y agoI agree that it's a techy branding, absolutely. I didn't finish my thought, sorry about that: I meant that it's up to us the techies to push what's of objectively better quality into the spotlight for the non-tech users to adopt. And I do that when the opportunity arises.
- switchbak 4y agoAgree 100% on the benefits of Rust generally, and the overall quality of the new breed of tooling that's being developed. I too strongly prefer things make in Rust. That said, I still think "RustDesk" comes off kind of cheesy here. I think mostly because it's not a one-off utility where using Rust would be a primary factor, but it's high level enough that highlighting the implementation language so prominently comes off a little funny. Like you couldn't differentiate the product enough on its own so you had to highlight the language you used? I will have a look at it, but in this example that's a very mild initial turnoff for me. I must be spoiled to be so picky! Edit: after poking around a bit more, this looks pretty interesting. The intro "Yet another remote desktop software" would indicate that there's a lot of options out there, and they are trying to differentiate themselves. Maybe highlighting Rust in this case _is_ actually an important signifier of a stronger dedication to writing a lean application (I'll find out soon!). I'll retract some of my knee-jerk uninformed hesitance above.
- pdimitar 4y agoYeah I agree the naming is goofy and comes across as hacker-y and not user-friendly, maybe. I guess we the programmers generally suck at naming things? :D
- vlunkr 4y agoMaybe you disagree with them, but I have a hard time finding anything harsh about that comment. It's just their opinion on the phenomenon.