4 ms·

Were you not satisfied with the justification? If not why not?

peppermint_gum 3y ago
That article did little to convince me they aren't just chasing the latest trends. I mean, the only concrete example in that post is that Go's stdlib function for setting file permissions is bad. It's such a minor thing, it's ridiculous.
- robot_no_421 3y ago
  Article was not written to convince skeptical contrarians, it was written to explain their decisions. I doubt they care that you aren't convinced of their choices when you have no skin in their game. If you read their article clearly laying our their reasons for their decision to migrate to Rust and your take away was "I disagree with their reasons, they really did it for a different reason", idk what to tell you. You're basically turning a statement they made into an argument they aren't making.
  - alex_lav 3y ago
    After skimming it, I kinda think the only point they really needed to make was "Rust makes the core team happier". I think the person you're responding to's point, is lots of the things this post is describing about Rust are also true about Go, in which case they're just kind of...saying things...? Which, to be clear, I think is fine, I just also think these things clearly wouldn't be the catalyst for a full rewrite on their own. To then say "Our team also just likes Rust a lot" is, to me, the only real edge that Rust has over Go, based on the decisionmaking in this blog post. Your developer's experience is valuable, and caring about what your developers _want to write_ is admirable. It doesn't have to be an argument, I am also just the type of person that thinks it's important to point out when people claim to do things for non-reasons.
  - lossolo 3y ago
    Well, you need to justify your new cost to the rest of the company/other people. Sometimes, you can't do it technically because you just want that shiny new toy so much that you write whatever you think would justify that. I saw that so many times when people were choosing new technology, many times going from X to Rust too. Like many other technical people in this thread, as a person who knows Go and Rust and experienced "migrations" like this one, I can tell you their justification is really technically weak, and I agree with the OP.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - robot_no_421 3y ago
      >Well, you need to justify your new cost to the rest of the company/other people. I mean, do they really? They already got the green-light to port to Rust; so the people whose opinions actually matter, the people responsible for the health of that company, have already been convinced. So what if you think their justification is weak? Do you believe the company is worse off because they're switching to Rust? Do you even have all the information to make that judgement call? Do you honestly even care?
      - serf 3y ago
        >So what if you think their justification is weak? "so what if you think a for-profit company is making an extraneous decision and wasting the time of their employees?" you don't need to be a language fanboi to understand that superficially changing languages to meet the trend is wasteful/harmful/dangerous/stupid in nearly all cases when you already have a working (and bought) product -- if that is suspected here then it makes good sense to judge the decision-making capabilities of the organization.
        robot_no_421 3y ago
        >"so what if you think a for-profit company is making an extraneous decision and wasting the time of their employees?" Yea exactly, so what? Are you a share holder? Are you an employee? Do you even have evidence that what you're saying is in fact true? Do you even know what you're talking about? >you don't need to be a language fanboi Ah I see, you're one of those Rust haters. Nothing I said here had anything to do with Rust. They could have been porting to any other language and I'd say the exact same thing. >superficially changing languages to meet the trend is wasteful/ harmful/ dangerous/ stupid in nearly all cases In other words, only when the high and mighty serf agrees with a company's decisions is it a good idea. He doesn't even need to know anything about the company, he already knows from his omniscient powers when a company decision is the right or wrong one.
- masklinn 3y ago
  Don't provide an example, get told that you had no reason. Do provide an example, get told that it's insufficiently problematic. Have you considered that the example was exactly that, an example of the difference in philosophy between the language, one which symbolises > the mismatch of Go's priorities and what we are prioritizing

That article did little to convince me they aren't just chasing the latest trends. I mean, the only concrete example in that post is that Go's stdlib function for setting file permissions is bad. It's such a minor thing, it's ridiculous.

robot_no_421 3y ago
Article was not written to convince skeptical contrarians, it was written to explain their decisions. I doubt they care that you aren't convinced of their choices when you have no skin in their game. If you read their article clearly laying our their reasons for their decision to migrate to Rust and your take away was "I disagree with their reasons, they really did it for a different reason", idk what to tell you. You're basically turning a statement they made into an argument they aren't making.
- alex_lav 3y ago
  After skimming it, I kinda think the only point they really needed to make was "Rust makes the core team happier". I think the person you're responding to's point, is lots of the things this post is describing about Rust are also true about Go, in which case they're just kind of...saying things...? Which, to be clear, I think is fine, I just also think these things clearly wouldn't be the catalyst for a full rewrite on their own. To then say "Our team also just likes Rust a lot" is, to me, the only real edge that Rust has over Go, based on the decisionmaking in this blog post. Your developer's experience is valuable, and caring about what your developers _want to write_ is admirable. It doesn't have to be an argument, I am also just the type of person that thinks it's important to point out when people claim to do things for non-reasons.
- lossolo 3y ago
  Well, you need to justify your new cost to the rest of the company/other people. Sometimes, you can't do it technically because you just want that shiny new toy so much that you write whatever you think would justify that. I saw that so many times when people were choosing new technology, many times going from X to Rust too. Like many other technical people in this thread, as a person who knows Go and Rust and experienced "migrations" like this one, I can tell you their justification is really technically weak, and I agree with the OP.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - robot_no_421 3y ago
    >Well, you need to justify your new cost to the rest of the company/other people. I mean, do they really? They already got the green-light to port to Rust; so the people whose opinions actually matter, the people responsible for the health of that company, have already been convinced. So what if you think their justification is weak? Do you believe the company is worse off because they're switching to Rust? Do you even have all the information to make that judgement call? Do you honestly even care?
    - serf 3y ago
      >So what if you think their justification is weak? "so what if you think a for-profit company is making an extraneous decision and wasting the time of their employees?" you don't need to be a language fanboi to understand that superficially changing languages to meet the trend is wasteful/harmful/dangerous/stupid in nearly all cases when you already have a working (and bought) product -- if that is suspected here then it makes good sense to judge the decision-making capabilities of the organization.
      - robot_no_421 3y ago
        >"so what if you think a for-profit company is making an extraneous decision and wasting the time of their employees?" Yea exactly, so what? Are you a share holder? Are you an employee? Do you even have evidence that what you're saying is in fact true? Do you even know what you're talking about? >you don't need to be a language fanboi Ah I see, you're one of those Rust haters. Nothing I said here had anything to do with Rust. They could have been porting to any other language and I'd say the exact same thing. >superficially changing languages to meet the trend is wasteful/ harmful/ dangerous/ stupid in nearly all cases In other words, only when the high and mighty serf agrees with a company's decisions is it a good idea. He doesn't even need to know anything about the company, he already knows from his omniscient powers when a company decision is the right or wrong one.
masklinn 3y ago
Don't provide an example, get told that you had no reason. Do provide an example, get told that it's insufficiently problematic. Have you considered that the example was exactly that, an example of the difference in philosophy between the language, one which symbolises > the mismatch of Go's priorities and what we are prioritizing