3 ms·
Most of the Rust folks aren't interested in articulated discussion about trade offs, they're zealots making a moral argument and view themselves with a sense of
by infamouscow 3y ago
Most of the Rust folks aren't interested in articulated discussion about trade offs, they're zealots making a moral argument and view themselves with a sense of divine superiority parallel to the Christian crusades.
This is made exceedingly clear if you ask for specific examples of when Rust shouldn't be your first choice or when Rust is second-fiddle to more optimal solutions.
- fleventynine 3y agoMost of us don't spend our time arguing online; we're busy using the language in domains where it's clearly the best choice: embedded and systems software where memory safety and a tight memory footprint are more important than productivity for new developers. Once you have a few years experience under your belt, it's natural to want to use the language in other domains like large web applications, even though it's only a reasonable choice because you already spent the effort to learn the language.
- bowsamic 3y ago> Most of us don't spend our time arguing online; we're busy using the language in domains where it's clearly the best choice That seems like a highly unrealistic claim to me.
- fleventynine 3y agoThe fact that there are some domains where Rust is clearly the best choice? Or that there are plenty of corporate Rust users who don't make their language choice part of their identity?
- bowsamic 3y agoThe latter
- gv83 3y agoyou forgot the part about parroting arguments around "soundness", "realiability", "correctness", "easier to reason about" and "refactorings" for the 2-internal-users-only 2 models crud, completely ignoring the notion of non-functional requirements. they already killed scala, let's see how much time they need to kill rust