3 ms·

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

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
    And yet there are programs out there that work well enough, but that's not a story PL theorists would tell you.
    - Ygg2 4y ago
      Saying work well enough isn't really reasurring. To quote Douglas Crockford: "If you say it hardly happens, it means it happens".

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
  And yet there are programs out there that work well enough, but that's not a story PL theorists would tell you.
  - Ygg2 4y ago
    Saying work well enough isn't really reasurring. To quote Douglas Crockford: "If you say it hardly happens, it means it happens".