4 ms·

> but this "Rust Thing" is legitimately scary in the way that MAGA politics is legitimately scary: we've mobilized people in large numbers in a cause that they

> but this "Rust Thing" is legitimately scary in the way that MAGA politics is legitimately scary: we've mobilized people in large numbers in a cause that they don't understand. What exactly are you scared of? What is the bad outcome that will come from more software being written in Rust? Are you scared that important projects will be derailed by a successful campaign to rewrite large amounts of code in Rust? Or something else? The fact that promotion of Rust pattern-matches against a scary political movement isn't, IMO, reason enough to be scared. To be clear, I'm not part of any coordinated Rust marketing effort. I just like what I've seen of Rust so far, I want to write more of it (edit: particularly in contexts where I currently use Electron or server-side web frameworks based on less efficient language runtimes), and I think enthusiasm about Rust is justified.

benreesman 4y ago
Rust boosters are already actively rewriting PLT history to where `?`-notation is an innovation, not a syntax for a somewhat broken, highly limited notion of effects distinct from computation. There are effect contexts not only richer, but critically more important than `Either`, e.g. `StateT`. If Rust had the momentum of a typical over-hyped programming language I'd be merely interested. The insane "better than a politician" marketing creates risks I can't even foresee, and the ones I can are all very, very bad.
- mwcampbell 4y ago
  > Rust boosters are already actively rewriting PLT history to where `?`-notation is an innovation To be clear, are they actually denying the influence of Haskell and other languages, or are they just saying that `?` notation is something new in their experience, and better than what's available in current popular languages? IMO, there's nothing wrong with the latter. > not a syntax for a somewhat broken, highly limited notion of effects distinct from computation. There are effect contexts not only richer, but critically more important than `Either`, e.g. `StateT`. So are you concerned that the hype around Rust will prevent people from discovering Haskell and using it in situations where it would be an even better choice? I guess that could happen, but IMO promoting something less dangerous than C and C++ on the one hand, and more efficient than JavaScript on the other, that people will actually be willing to use for real projects today, is important enough to justify that risk. > risks I can't even foresee, and the ones I can are all very, very bad. What are some of those risks you can foresee?
  - benreesman 4y ago
    The Rust Core Team is neither ignorant nor stupid. Furthermore you can't find one of them that doesn't know both Haskell and Idris well I more than suspect at this stage in the proceedings. They are completely aware of the necessity of separating effects from computations if one truly wanted to create a "safe" programming language that was in the critical path of the mainstream. Actually doing this is a fairly high bar modulu all the memory-safety nonsense in the talking points deck. It would create roughly no people who had a low-friction migration path from TypeScript to Rust, which is diametrically opposed to having a menacing mob at ones disposal. Rust is halfway between the polar points articulated by Paul Graham: it's neither designed for it's serious users (though they pretend to like it) nor it's audience who it openly condescends to. As for the scary effects of having a programming language committee control more votes than 4chan on internet forums in general: yeah I don't know how that's going to play, but I'm pretty sure I'm not going to like it.
    - mwcampbell 4y ago
      > It would create roughly no people who had a low-friction migration path from TypeScript to Rust, which is diametrically opposed to having a menacing mob at ones disposal. Having a low-friction migration path from TypeScript also enables more programmers to write reliable, efficient software. I hope that the number of programmers quietly doing this will grow to eclipse the number posting to forums. We must not get so caught up in forum drama that we forget that increasing the quantity of good software in the world is what's most important.
      - benreesman 4y ago
        I hope that those of us who sold our souls for money while knowing full well the history around Therac-25 aren’t eclipsed by a generation who gave even more for a friggin badge on Reddit.
        sealeck 4y ago
        Rewriting TypeScript code in Rust (or writing what would have been TypeScript in Rust instead) is in no way morally analagous to Therac-25. This is the kind of claim that Haskell programmers make on the basis that they believe Haskell prevents faults (providing no specific evidence - in contrast to Rust, which draws on numerous data showing that memory safety is a serious concern) in computer software. The core problem in Therac-25 was exactly this - the programmers thought they were very good at writing software (when they were not) and decided to remove the hardware safety restrictions (which they should have not done, even if they were really good computer programmers). It wasn't about type systems, it was about hubris and real-world hardware.
- zozbot234 4y ago
  It's an innovation compared to most other languages in common use. We should celebrate the fact that Rust is bringing advanced PL features to a mass audience, especially given that it's far from clear how to unify all of those features within a single "effects" framework.
  - benreesman 4y ago
    As I have on numerous occasions. I routinely celebrate Rust as the language popularizing the notion of "constraints as power", search for it if your don't believe me, but I with equal frequency get Flying Fucking Rust Gangbang Battalion attacked for stopping short of "Rust is the programming language of the God Emperor himself".

benreesman 4y ago

Rust boosters are already actively rewriting PLT history to where `?`-notation is an innovation, not a syntax for a somewhat broken, highly limited notion of effects distinct from computation. There are effect contexts not only richer, but critically more important than `Either`, e.g. `StateT`. If Rust had the momentum of a typical over-hyped programming language I'd be merely interested. The insane "better than a politician" marketing creates risks I can't even foresee, and the ones I can are all very, very bad.

mwcampbell 4y ago
> Rust boosters are already actively rewriting PLT history to where `?`-notation is an innovation To be clear, are they actually denying the influence of Haskell and other languages, or are they just saying that `?` notation is something new in their experience, and better than what's available in current popular languages? IMO, there's nothing wrong with the latter. > not a syntax for a somewhat broken, highly limited notion of effects distinct from computation. There are effect contexts not only richer, but critically more important than `Either`, e.g. `StateT`. So are you concerned that the hype around Rust will prevent people from discovering Haskell and using it in situations where it would be an even better choice? I guess that could happen, but IMO promoting something less dangerous than C and C++ on the one hand, and more efficient than JavaScript on the other, that people will actually be willing to use for real projects today, is important enough to justify that risk. > risks I can't even foresee, and the ones I can are all very, very bad. What are some of those risks you can foresee?
- benreesman 4y ago
  The Rust Core Team is neither ignorant nor stupid. Furthermore you can't find one of them that doesn't know both Haskell and Idris well I more than suspect at this stage in the proceedings. They are completely aware of the necessity of separating effects from computations if one truly wanted to create a "safe" programming language that was in the critical path of the mainstream. Actually doing this is a fairly high bar modulu all the memory-safety nonsense in the talking points deck. It would create roughly no people who had a low-friction migration path from TypeScript to Rust, which is diametrically opposed to having a menacing mob at ones disposal. Rust is halfway between the polar points articulated by Paul Graham: it's neither designed for it's serious users (though they pretend to like it) nor it's audience who it openly condescends to. As for the scary effects of having a programming language committee control more votes than 4chan on internet forums in general: yeah I don't know how that's going to play, but I'm pretty sure I'm not going to like it.
  - mwcampbell 4y ago
    > It would create roughly no people who had a low-friction migration path from TypeScript to Rust, which is diametrically opposed to having a menacing mob at ones disposal. Having a low-friction migration path from TypeScript also enables more programmers to write reliable, efficient software. I hope that the number of programmers quietly doing this will grow to eclipse the number posting to forums. We must not get so caught up in forum drama that we forget that increasing the quantity of good software in the world is what's most important.
    - benreesman 4y ago
      I hope that those of us who sold our souls for money while knowing full well the history around Therac-25 aren’t eclipsed by a generation who gave even more for a friggin badge on Reddit.
      - sealeck 4y ago
        Rewriting TypeScript code in Rust (or writing what would have been TypeScript in Rust instead) is in no way morally analagous to Therac-25. This is the kind of claim that Haskell programmers make on the basis that they believe Haskell prevents faults (providing no specific evidence - in contrast to Rust, which draws on numerous data showing that memory safety is a serious concern) in computer software. The core problem in Therac-25 was exactly this - the programmers thought they were very good at writing software (when they were not) and decided to remove the hardware safety restrictions (which they should have not done, even if they were really good computer programmers). It wasn't about type systems, it was about hubris and real-world hardware.
zozbot234 4y ago
It's an innovation compared to most other languages in common use. We should celebrate the fact that Rust is bringing advanced PL features to a mass audience, especially given that it's far from clear how to unify all of those features within a single "effects" framework.
- benreesman 4y ago
  As I have on numerous occasions. I routinely celebrate Rust as the language popularizing the notion of "constraints as power", search for it if your don't believe me, but I with equal frequency get Flying Fucking Rust Gangbang Battalion attacked for stopping short of "Rust is the programming language of the God Emperor himself".