3 ms·
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 d
by 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 agoI 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 agoCalling 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.