6 ms·

I see you do not have much contact with Rust evangelists.

by ncmncm 4y ago

Qwertious 4y ago
I think they're thinking "how do we get those C++ businesses to switch to Rust" rather than "how do I bankrupt them".
- ncmncm 4y ago
  They're thinking "how do we get those C++ businesses to stop hiring C++ coders, and start hiring us Rust coders instead". The original purpose of Rust was to displace C, a laudable goal. But it is failing at that, because C coders are practically defined as people who will never switch to anything. (Any who might have did already.) So now the only hope is to displace C++ instead, and the propaganda machine is trying to paint C++ as equally as unsafe as C, which it manifestly is not, lying if that is what it takes.
  - Tozen 4y ago
    Well, there is corporate financial interests involved, which is sure to push the propaganda machine into higher gear. Expect a lot more trash and FUD being thrown around by converted fanatics and speculators, in regards to all the "inferior" languages.
kubb 4y ago
What issue is there for the C++ developers to transition? Rust is a simpler language, with better characteristics. Memory safety is the a big selling point for the business people, but there is also a better module system, dependency management, better generics, no hidden memory allocation, etc. etc.
- LtWorf 4y ago
  > What issue is there for the C++ developers to transition? rust is lacking a ton of libraries. And personally I prefer using a big thing like Qt which has classes for everything, rather than rust where I have to find a non-terrible library for every little thing.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Rust is not, in the end, a simpler language, in the same way C is not. It is able to do less, which leaves me needing to do more.
sophacles 4y ago
"Hey C++ developer, you should use rust instead" is very different than "Hey C++ developer, I don't want you to have a job". Do you not see the difference?
- ncmncm 4y ago
  I do. "New programs should not be in C++" means, exactly, "You should be laid off so they can hire me instead". If you had something that could do what I need, I would be using it already. It cannot. But you want to bypass me and fool managers, instead, with FUD about memory faults I don't code and have not in years. I have spent strictly more time in the past five years filing compiler bug reports than chasing memory faults. Yet you say I should trust the compiler to make errors impossible. Are you able to see the flaw in your reasoning, here?
  - sophacles 4y ago
    > "New programs should not be in C++" means, exactly, "You should be laid off so they can hire me instead". That strikes me as wrong in many ways. I think it means, exactly - "new programs should use a different language than C++". I someone writing that might have been implying "hire me instead", but given the specific author is CTO of azure, i doubt they are angling for your job, or really any dev job. Managers hearing this advice from the CTO of could possibly interpret it as "lay off our C++ folks, we're hiring for rust". Or they could interpret it as: * We should switch to the new language, have the team train up. * We should have the team start evaluating new languages (or rust specifically). * We hire some rust folks for the next project to evaluate how it goes. Any half-way decent management will know that the institutional knowledge in their existing dev team is worth a lot, and getting the new hires up to speed is rather expensive. Sure crap management exists, but I've never had, nor known any who has had management so bad that they would lay off thier whole dev team over a tweet. I really doubt "lay off all the C++ folks" would be a particularly common response.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      The topic in this subthread is overbearing Rust evangelists and their effects. To the degree that management pays them any attention -- and a CTO parroting their advocacy in tweets (squawks?) certainly counts -- the threat is real. Other companies' management may be equally affected, in a degree more than just posting idle-hack tweets. Against, the subthread topic is overbearing Rust advocates and, specifically, what harm they can do. Obviously nobody will "lay off all the C++ folks" just because Rust promoters would really like that, and as much as say so. But that is very far from saying no harm is done, or that no one is harmed by their extremist rhetoric.

I see you do not have much contact with Rust evangelists.

by ncmncm 4y ago

I see you do not have much contact with Rust evangelists.

Qwertious 4y ago

I think they're thinking "how do we get those C++ businesses to switch to Rust" rather than "how do I bankrupt them".

ncmncm 4y ago
They're thinking "how do we get those C++ businesses to stop hiring C++ coders, and start hiring us Rust coders instead". The original purpose of Rust was to displace C, a laudable goal. But it is failing at that, because C coders are practically defined as people who will never switch to anything. (Any who might have did already.) So now the only hope is to displace C++ instead, and the propaganda machine is trying to paint C++ as equally as unsafe as C, which it manifestly is not, lying if that is what it takes.
- Tozen 4y ago
  Well, there is corporate financial interests involved, which is sure to push the propaganda machine into higher gear. Expect a lot more trash and FUD being thrown around by converted fanatics and speculators, in regards to all the "inferior" languages.

kubb 4y ago

What issue is there for the C++ developers to transition? Rust is a simpler language, with better characteristics. Memory safety is the a big selling point for the business people, but there is also a better module system, dependency management, better generics, no hidden memory allocation, etc. etc.

LtWorf 4y ago
> What issue is there for the C++ developers to transition? rust is lacking a ton of libraries. And personally I prefer using a big thing like Qt which has classes for everything, rather than rust where I have to find a non-terrible library for every little thing.
ncmncm 4y ago
Rust is not, in the end, a simpler language, in the same way C is not. It is able to do less, which leaves me needing to do more.

sophacles 4y ago

"Hey C++ developer, you should use rust instead" is very different than "Hey C++ developer, I don't want you to have a job". Do you not see the difference?

ncmncm 4y ago
I do. "New programs should not be in C++" means, exactly, "You should be laid off so they can hire me instead". If you had something that could do what I need, I would be using it already. It cannot. But you want to bypass me and fool managers, instead, with FUD about memory faults I don't code and have not in years. I have spent strictly more time in the past five years filing compiler bug reports than chasing memory faults. Yet you say I should trust the compiler to make errors impossible. Are you able to see the flaw in your reasoning, here?
- sophacles 4y ago
  > "New programs should not be in C++" means, exactly, "You should be laid off so they can hire me instead". That strikes me as wrong in many ways. I think it means, exactly - "new programs should use a different language than C++". I someone writing that might have been implying "hire me instead", but given the specific author is CTO of azure, i doubt they are angling for your job, or really any dev job. Managers hearing this advice from the CTO of could possibly interpret it as "lay off our C++ folks, we're hiring for rust". Or they could interpret it as: * We should switch to the new language, have the team train up. * We should have the team start evaluating new languages (or rust specifically). * We hire some rust folks for the next project to evaluate how it goes. Any half-way decent management will know that the institutional knowledge in their existing dev team is worth a lot, and getting the new hires up to speed is rather expensive. Sure crap management exists, but I've never had, nor known any who has had management so bad that they would lay off thier whole dev team over a tweet. I really doubt "lay off all the C++ folks" would be a particularly common response.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    The topic in this subthread is overbearing Rust evangelists and their effects. To the degree that management pays them any attention -- and a CTO parroting their advocacy in tweets (squawks?) certainly counts -- the threat is real. Other companies' management may be equally affected, in a degree more than just posting idle-hack tweets. Against, the subthread topic is overbearing Rust advocates and, specifically, what harm they can do. Obviously nobody will "lay off all the C++ folks" just because Rust promoters would really like that, and as much as say so. But that is very far from saying no harm is done, or that no one is harmed by their extremist rhetoric.