5 ms·

It's the same shit at Meta. It's developer job security. Random group decides to rewrite in Rust but then breaks their shipped codebase for 3 weeks. They don't

It's the same shit at Meta. It's developer job security. Random group decides to rewrite in Rust but then breaks their shipped codebase for 3 weeks. They don't care. They have a new toy and don't care if they break things other people use.

ativzzz 4y ago
This is how I feel about devs forcing rust onto web UI development (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35722681 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35722681). JS exists and people already make new toys (frameworks) for it every month. That's not enough and now we need rust on the frontend
- 1letterunixname 4y ago
  I care if it's written to be better and cheaper to maintain. I don't care about a new Javascript, Rust, or (latest religion) framework, this or that, unless the approach is better than what came before and it's part of sound governance. Code should not be religious, it should be functional and focused on its purpose.
- xedrac 4y ago
  I often advocate for the use of Rust, but it's not the right tool for every job. If one of these conditions is met, I'll happily use Rust: - Cannot have garbage collection - Need the raw speed of C - Need to provide a C interface - Already have a lot of Rust code in the project Having said that, I very much prefer statically typed languages, and ones with a focus on correctness and safety. Rust and Haskell both fit that bill very well.
- waboremo 4y ago
  Thankfully most of that seems self-contained to Reddit/HN in pet projects. My god what a disaster for the web that would be, shoving everything into WASM despite zero performance reason to.
- zeroxfe 4y ago
  Nobody's forcing anything. This is hacker culture, and it's what drives progress. Get over it.
  - ativzzz 4y ago
    Hacker culture is great. Hacker culture is less great at work when I have to deal with over-engineered over-abstracted code that's hard to debug and solves simple problems in seemingly simple ways until inevitably you have to dive in and dig deep to figure out wtf is actually happening and good luck (this is how i imagine debugging rust UIs on the web will be) I'm just ranting. I know in reality not every abstraction is correct and often they introduce more problems than they actually solve, but every once in a while the hackers get it right and that's when progress is made. In the meanwhile us normies have to deal with the experiments of complex bs to solve simple problems
    - cookieperson 4y ago
      Rust is actually pretty kind about most abstractions. Sure you can write creepy rust, but it requires a lot more effort to write creepy rust than it does in say C. More chances that a code reviewer will say "ugh this is too fancy", whereas in C some pretty crazy stuff can seem so innocent.
    - vpastore 4y ago
      if you aren't smart enough to understand it doesn't mean it is "over-engineered over-abstracted"
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
pohl 4y ago
Listen to them talking about it. This isn’t the sound of rogue group of developers focused on creating job security for themselves https://youtu.be/8T6ClX-y2AE?t=2607 https://youtu.be/8T6ClX-y2AE?t=2607
- cookieperson 4y ago
  Developing in rust is so much easier than other languages I've used. Took a while to get the hang of it. It's honestly a wonderful experience. Can blindly follow types or hone in on performance critical areas without sketchy bugs.
  - warkdarrior 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - Klonoar 4y ago
      …the roles in question at Microsoft are literal business value since that’s their jobs. Chill out and read the article.
    - Izikiel43 4y ago
      Well, if you watched the video you would know. Since they are removing whole attack surfaces, which means reduced exploits, which means more security, which at windows scale means millions of dollars saved in prevented security issues for companies across the world.
      - 1letterunixname 4y ago
        The way Microsoft wrote code for 40 years was an attack surface. The absurdity and fragility of DCOM and ActiveX without meaningful security or development rigor.
        Izikiel43 4y ago
        Ok? What's the point? Do you want them to invent a time machine and not do that? Is it a bad idea to fix the issues?
phendrenad2 4y ago
I think that "let people rewrite stuff in the new cool language/framework" is a deliberate strategy to retain midrange talent.
faeriechangling 4y ago
I can’t disagree more. I hesitate to hitch my cart to Rust, but rewriting all the old memory unsafe code is an inevitable need. This status quo of just patching things up every time an exploit appears is farcical when we have the tools to address these problems today.
- jenadine 4y ago
  I don't think it is so much about rewriting old code, rather new code is written in Rust.
  - timbit42 4y ago
    I don't think it is so much about rewriting old or new code, rather code where security and stability are important is written in Rust.
MisterBastahrd 4y ago
Because when I think of what would give me the most job security, it's to reimplement something that we already have and works perfectly fine on its own.

ativzzz 4y ago

This is how I feel about devs forcing rust onto web UI development (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35722681 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35722681). JS exists and people already make new toys (frameworks) for it every month. That's not enough and now we need rust on the frontend

1letterunixname 4y ago
I care if it's written to be better and cheaper to maintain. I don't care about a new Javascript, Rust, or (latest religion) framework, this or that, unless the approach is better than what came before and it's part of sound governance. Code should not be religious, it should be functional and focused on its purpose.
xedrac 4y ago
I often advocate for the use of Rust, but it's not the right tool for every job. If one of these conditions is met, I'll happily use Rust: - Cannot have garbage collection - Need the raw speed of C - Need to provide a C interface - Already have a lot of Rust code in the project Having said that, I very much prefer statically typed languages, and ones with a focus on correctness and safety. Rust and Haskell both fit that bill very well.
waboremo 4y ago
Thankfully most of that seems self-contained to Reddit/HN in pet projects. My god what a disaster for the web that would be, shoving everything into WASM despite zero performance reason to.
zeroxfe 4y ago
Nobody's forcing anything. This is hacker culture, and it's what drives progress. Get over it.
- ativzzz 4y ago
  Hacker culture is great. Hacker culture is less great at work when I have to deal with over-engineered over-abstracted code that's hard to debug and solves simple problems in seemingly simple ways until inevitably you have to dive in and dig deep to figure out wtf is actually happening and good luck (this is how i imagine debugging rust UIs on the web will be) I'm just ranting. I know in reality not every abstraction is correct and often they introduce more problems than they actually solve, but every once in a while the hackers get it right and that's when progress is made. In the meanwhile us normies have to deal with the experiments of complex bs to solve simple problems
  - cookieperson 4y ago
    Rust is actually pretty kind about most abstractions. Sure you can write creepy rust, but it requires a lot more effort to write creepy rust than it does in say C. More chances that a code reviewer will say "ugh this is too fancy", whereas in C some pretty crazy stuff can seem so innocent.
  - vpastore 4y ago
    if you aren't smart enough to understand it doesn't mean it is "over-engineered over-abstracted"
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

pohl 4y ago

Listen to them talking about it. This isn’t the sound of rogue group of developers focused on creating job security for themselves https://youtu.be/8T6ClX-y2AE?t=2607 https://youtu.be/8T6ClX-y2AE?t=2607

cookieperson 4y ago
Developing in rust is so much easier than other languages I've used. Took a while to get the hang of it. It's honestly a wonderful experience. Can blindly follow types or hone in on performance critical areas without sketchy bugs.
- warkdarrior 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - Klonoar 4y ago
    …the roles in question at Microsoft are literal business value since that’s their jobs. Chill out and read the article.
  - Izikiel43 4y ago
    Well, if you watched the video you would know. Since they are removing whole attack surfaces, which means reduced exploits, which means more security, which at windows scale means millions of dollars saved in prevented security issues for companies across the world.
    - 1letterunixname 4y ago
      The way Microsoft wrote code for 40 years was an attack surface. The absurdity and fragility of DCOM and ActiveX without meaningful security or development rigor.
      - Izikiel43 4y ago
        Ok? What's the point? Do you want them to invent a time machine and not do that? Is it a bad idea to fix the issues?

phendrenad2 4y ago

I think that "let people rewrite stuff in the new cool language/framework" is a deliberate strategy to retain midrange talent.

faeriechangling 4y ago

I can’t disagree more. I hesitate to hitch my cart to Rust, but rewriting all the old memory unsafe code is an inevitable need. This status quo of just patching things up every time an exploit appears is farcical when we have the tools to address these problems today.

jenadine 4y ago
I don't think it is so much about rewriting old code, rather new code is written in Rust.
- timbit42 4y ago
  I don't think it is so much about rewriting old or new code, rather code where security and stability are important is written in Rust.

MisterBastahrd 4y ago

Because when I think of what would give me the most job security, it's to reimplement something that we already have and works perfectly fine on its own.