6 ms·

I've noticed people that like writing code in Zig are fans the language and the people that like writing code in Rust center their identity around the language.

I've noticed people that like writing code in Zig are fans the language and the people that like writing code in Rust center their identity around the language. The former leads to people saying they enjoy writing code in Zig, the later leads to religious zealotry and moral condemnation for using anything other than Rust.

davidjfelix 4y ago
Which language is the one where you make sweeping generalizations?
- hu3 4y ago
  It's funny you say that when a rustacean just posted below that it is irresponsible to use unsafe languages. Instead of focusing on tradeoffs they chose to call others irresponsible.
  - pcwalton 4y ago
    It's perfectly reasonable to take the position that it's deeply problematic for a language aiming for wide use in 2022 to not be memory safe. There's no requirement that you "focus on tradeoffs", especially since real people get hurt by memory safety problems.
    - kristoff_it 4y ago
      I think you're actively hurting the project that you care about in your ineffective crusade, but hey, don't let me stop you.
  - TakeBlaster16 4y ago
    > It's funny you say that when [member of group] just [did something once]. It's not a sweeping generalization! They always do this!
  - tadfisher 4y ago
    That comment does not mention Rust.
ameixaseca 4y ago
Not sure which lens you are using for coming to this conclusion. In my experience, most people writing Rust code have no "moral superiority" and treat Rust as a "better tool", not as a religion per se. However, what I've seen in the discourse of several programmers that claim to prefer Zig is the assumption that Rust is "not really that big of a deal". There's a constant minimization of the advancements both the ownership system and the safety approach provide, and a lack of recognition for the fact that the language is a "game changer" in the industry. Overall, this looks a lot like rationalization of an emotional choice, which for me is much more close to religious zealotry.
- kristoff_it 4y ago
  > However, what I've seen in the discourse of several programmers that claim to prefer Zig is the assumption that Rust is "not really that big of a deal". There's a constant minimization of the advancements both the ownership system and the safety approach provide, and a lack of recognition for the fact that the language is a "game changer" in the industry. I think you have inadvertently worded this in a way that silently confirms what the parent poster was saying. But more generally, while I can't speak for the entirety of the Zig community, the people involved with Zig directly tend to be aware of Rust's strengths. The problem is that one of the reasons why Zig exists (and is having some level of success) is because some people just don't want to deal with abstraction-heavy code. Some people value simplicity over a complex language with a memory-safe subset. And the value of simplicity is not just a matter of aesthetics. Simplicity is a defense against bugs, because memory safety is not the end goal, correctness is. https://twitter.com/croloris/status/1568342336580755456 https://twitter.com/croloris/status/1568342336580755456
  - Ygg2 4y ago
    I think the issue is memory safety is reachable. Correctness is either extremely hard (proof program satisfied specifications) to nigh impossible (make sure all icon pointy things are aligned).
    - kristoff_it 4y ago

davidjfelix 4y ago

Which language is the one where you make sweeping generalizations?

hu3 4y ago
It's funny you say that when a rustacean just posted below that it is irresponsible to use unsafe languages. Instead of focusing on tradeoffs they chose to call others irresponsible.
- pcwalton 4y ago
  It's perfectly reasonable to take the position that it's deeply problematic for a language aiming for wide use in 2022 to not be memory safe. There's no requirement that you "focus on tradeoffs", especially since real people get hurt by memory safety problems.
  - kristoff_it 4y ago
    I think you're actively hurting the project that you care about in your ineffective crusade, but hey, don't let me stop you.
- TakeBlaster16 4y ago
  > It's funny you say that when [member of group] just [did something once]. It's not a sweeping generalization! They always do this!
- tadfisher 4y ago
  That comment does not mention Rust.

ameixaseca 4y ago

Not sure which lens you are using for coming to this conclusion. In my experience, most people writing Rust code have no "moral superiority" and treat Rust as a "better tool", not as a religion per se. However, what I've seen in the discourse of several programmers that claim to prefer Zig is the assumption that Rust is "not really that big of a deal". There's a constant minimization of the advancements both the ownership system and the safety approach provide, and a lack of recognition for the fact that the language is a "game changer" in the industry. Overall, this looks a lot like rationalization of an emotional choice, which for me is much more close to religious zealotry.

kristoff_it 4y ago
> However, what I've seen in the discourse of several programmers that claim to prefer Zig is the assumption that Rust is "not really that big of a deal". There's a constant minimization of the advancements both the ownership system and the safety approach provide, and a lack of recognition for the fact that the language is a "game changer" in the industry. I think you have inadvertently worded this in a way that silently confirms what the parent poster was saying. But more generally, while I can't speak for the entirety of the Zig community, the people involved with Zig directly tend to be aware of Rust's strengths. The problem is that one of the reasons why Zig exists (and is having some level of success) is because some people just don't want to deal with abstraction-heavy code. Some people value simplicity over a complex language with a memory-safe subset. And the value of simplicity is not just a matter of aesthetics. Simplicity is a defense against bugs, because memory safety is not the end goal, correctness is. https://twitter.com/croloris/status/1568342336580755456 https://twitter.com/croloris/status/1568342336580755456
- Ygg2 4y ago
  I think the issue is memory safety is reachable. Correctness is either extremely hard (proof program satisfied specifications) to nigh impossible (make sure all icon pointy things are aligned).
  - kristoff_it 4y ago