4 ms·

> "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 m

> "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.
- sophacles 4y ago
  > Obviously nobody will "lay off all the C++ folks" just because Rust promoters would really like that, and as much as say so 1. If it was so obvious, why did you claim it to be true, and then double down? 2. I have yet to see anyone say or even strongly imply it. The closest I've seen is this thread wherein you take a lot of leaps in reasoning and a very specific path through a large possibility space to divine the true intent of a simple sentence.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    It is one thing for people to advocate a thing, such as "you should fire all your C++ staff and hire us", and another thing for my employer to obey. But that difference does not make advocating it less bad, unless they are obviously speaking facetiously and expect it to have no effect. It is very clear people saying it mean it and want that to happen. Azure CTO's announcement is a success for that advocacy.
    - sophacles 4y ago
      I think you are delusional. No one is advocating for your firing. "NEW projects" is not "all projects ever existing". Just like cobol is still there and running decades after it was first considered a dead language. Even after new projects were all being written in java, the cobol programmers were there. They switched languages, or kept working in cobol. There are still new cobol programmers in 2022. Even if every C++ codebase wanted to rewrite itself in rust that effort would take decades and in the mean time we'd still need C++ devs. The only people advocating for firing C++ all devs are the imaginary ones in your head.
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        Calling people delusional means you have no argument. If my employer announced no new C++ projects, that would mean, at best, a sharp demotion. I would be relegated to maintenance of legacy products. The kind of systems I make would no longer be written, because Rust is not up to the job. You reveal that what you are doing is fully as nasty as it seems. You reveal that you believe there wil be no room for your language without first tearing down another.

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.

sophacles 4y ago
> Obviously nobody will "lay off all the C++ folks" just because Rust promoters would really like that, and as much as say so 1. If it was so obvious, why did you claim it to be true, and then double down? 2. I have yet to see anyone say or even strongly imply it. The closest I've seen is this thread wherein you take a lot of leaps in reasoning and a very specific path through a large possibility space to divine the true intent of a simple sentence.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  It is one thing for people to advocate a thing, such as "you should fire all your C++ staff and hire us", and another thing for my employer to obey. But that difference does not make advocating it less bad, unless they are obviously speaking facetiously and expect it to have no effect. It is very clear people saying it mean it and want that to happen. Azure CTO's announcement is a success for that advocacy.
  - sophacles 4y ago
    I think you are delusional. No one is advocating for your firing. "NEW projects" is not "all projects ever existing". Just like cobol is still there and running decades after it was first considered a dead language. Even after new projects were all being written in java, the cobol programmers were there. They switched languages, or kept working in cobol. There are still new cobol programmers in 2022. Even if every C++ codebase wanted to rewrite itself in rust that effort would take decades and in the mean time we'd still need C++ devs. The only people advocating for firing C++ all devs are the imaginary ones in your head.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Calling people delusional means you have no argument. If my employer announced no new C++ projects, that would mean, at best, a sharp demotion. I would be relegated to maintenance of legacy products. The kind of systems I make would no longer be written, because Rust is not up to the job. You reveal that what you are doing is fully as nasty as it seems. You reveal that you believe there wil be no room for your language without first tearing down another.