4 ms·

> We decided to move our entire codebase to Rust (and Go for the k8s control plane). > there was still one minor problem - no one on the team knew Rust. Is th

> We decided to move our entire codebase to Rust (and Go for the k8s control plane). > there was still one minor problem - no one on the team knew Rust. Is this real or satire? I can't tell.

drexlspivey 4y ago
How hard can it be for C/C++ devs to learn Rust? Python devs on the other hand..
- t6jvcereio 4y ago
  That's not the point. If no one knows the language, no one knows if it's appropriate. All you know is the language marketing claims
  - tinco 4y ago
    Even though it's software engineering, which supposedly isn't really engineering, you can still apply engineering principles. Disregarding all the bullshit debates about whether Rust is better than Go, there are actually differences between the languages that you can objectively research. Maybe no one in that specific company really knew the language, but there's loads of people actually using the language, it's not like it dropped from the clear blue sky. It's not like there's a Rust salesperson that knocked on their door with a leaflet. They're not even the first persons to write a database engine in Rust. I wonder if other engineering domains have this same silliness. Do the architects have intense debates over steel H beams vs wooden LVL beams, and at some point newbie architects believe you should only switch from one to the other as an architecture firm if your architects have experience with it, because the only way to know if it would work is reading the marketing claims. A compiler is just a tool. If you're doing a rewrite you better pick your tools correctly, and it seems like they did. You could theorise they were lucky somehow, or you could recognise that they're experienced, educated and skilled and made the right choice based on their researched.
    - t6jvcereio 4y ago
      > Do the architects have intense debates over steel H beams vs wooden LVL beams, and at some point newbie architects believe you should only switch from one to the other as an architecture firm if your architects have experience with it, because the only way to know if it would work is reading the marketing claims. That is one way to put it, which is convenient for the point you're making. A different way, more convenient for the point I'm making is that if you're budding roads and you need a bridge, you probably wouldn't hire a firm that only has experience building tunnels. So you see, your analogy is meaningless, because making an analogy is not a convincing way of making a point. Anyone can make an analogy. My argument on the other hand that experience is a very important factor, is a lot more convincing because anyone who has any kind of professional career already agreed with it.
  - nazka 4y ago
    I think at this point Rust has more than marketing points. Then if you have some bright people, and I mean doing what they are trying to do and feeling that RockDB is a slow database... They should be able to pick it up. I don't think it's an unreasonable decision as a CTO/CEO.
remram 4y ago
It's probably exaggerated. I doubt they committed to the re-write before anyone knew Rust. Hopefully what they meant is that Rust was only being considered when they started having the team learn it, or that the team was not extremely proficient at it when they picked (but had sufficient knowledge of the language). Not saying that this part didn't surprise me as well. And if they did commit based only on the marketing material... what a gamble.

> We decided to move our entire codebase to Rust (and Go for the k8s control plane). > there was still one minor problem - no one on the team knew Rust. Is this real or satire? I can't tell.

drexlspivey 4y ago

How hard can it be for C/C++ devs to learn Rust? Python devs on the other hand..

t6jvcereio 4y ago
That's not the point. If no one knows the language, no one knows if it's appropriate. All you know is the language marketing claims
- tinco 4y ago
  Even though it's software engineering, which supposedly isn't really engineering, you can still apply engineering principles. Disregarding all the bullshit debates about whether Rust is better than Go, there are actually differences between the languages that you can objectively research. Maybe no one in that specific company really knew the language, but there's loads of people actually using the language, it's not like it dropped from the clear blue sky. It's not like there's a Rust salesperson that knocked on their door with a leaflet. They're not even the first persons to write a database engine in Rust. I wonder if other engineering domains have this same silliness. Do the architects have intense debates over steel H beams vs wooden LVL beams, and at some point newbie architects believe you should only switch from one to the other as an architecture firm if your architects have experience with it, because the only way to know if it would work is reading the marketing claims. A compiler is just a tool. If you're doing a rewrite you better pick your tools correctly, and it seems like they did. You could theorise they were lucky somehow, or you could recognise that they're experienced, educated and skilled and made the right choice based on their researched.
  - t6jvcereio 4y ago
    > Do the architects have intense debates over steel H beams vs wooden LVL beams, and at some point newbie architects believe you should only switch from one to the other as an architecture firm if your architects have experience with it, because the only way to know if it would work is reading the marketing claims. That is one way to put it, which is convenient for the point you're making. A different way, more convenient for the point I'm making is that if you're budding roads and you need a bridge, you probably wouldn't hire a firm that only has experience building tunnels. So you see, your analogy is meaningless, because making an analogy is not a convincing way of making a point. Anyone can make an analogy. My argument on the other hand that experience is a very important factor, is a lot more convincing because anyone who has any kind of professional career already agreed with it.
- nazka 4y ago
  I think at this point Rust has more than marketing points. Then if you have some bright people, and I mean doing what they are trying to do and feeling that RockDB is a slow database... They should be able to pick it up. I don't think it's an unreasonable decision as a CTO/CEO.

remram 4y ago

It's probably exaggerated. I doubt they committed to the re-write before anyone knew Rust. Hopefully what they meant is that Rust was only being considered when they started having the team learn it, or that the team was not extremely proficient at it when they picked (but had sufficient knowledge of the language). Not saying that this part didn't surprise me as well. And if they did commit based only on the marketing material... what a gamble.