4 ms·

I like knowing something is written in Rust because (1) the staying power of a language has implications for the staying power of the project (how many Ada proj

I like knowing something is written in Rust because (1) the staying power of a language has implications for the staying power of the project (how many Ada projects do you see nowadays?) (2) I write Rust so I'm more likely to contribute to this, (3) I care about the safety and speed implications of language choice, but most of all (4) building from source usually isn't a pain with Rust's Cargo, but it is for most other languages. All these things materially impact how interested I am in using and contributing to the project.

HarHarVeryFunny 3y ago
> the staying power of a language has implications for the staying power of the project So Emacs' staying power is due to being written in LISP ?!
- KolenCh 3y ago
  A affects B, doesn’t mean B only depends on A.
  - HarHarVeryFunny 3y ago
    No, of course not, but the example does show that programming language is pretty much irrelevant. The big lie of open source is "you have the source, so you can extend it and fix bugs yourself". Of course in theory (with enough expertise and motivation) you can do these, but in practice most open source users don't contribute to the project, so the language it is written in is entirely irrelevant. When was the last time (if ever) you submitted a bug fix (not a report) for an open source tool you are using, let alone joined the project as a contributor?!
    - KolenCh 3y ago
      “Has implications” is a very weak statement. Even if it is a very small effect but measurable fits that description. “Irrelevant” is a very strong statement. It claims no effect at all. A single example does not justify the claim. You need at least some statistical evidence to support that claim. For your last question, yes I do. I sometimes take over the abandoned project to maintain it too. Some open source users never contribute in any way, some do. I’m not sure why there’s a need to dismiss the existence of the latter kind of users. No one is claiming all users should be like that.
  - KolenCh 3y ago
    “Has implications” is a very weak statement. Even if it is a very small effect but measurable fits that description. “Irrelevant” is a very strong statement. It claims no effect at all. A single example does not justify the claim. You need at least some statistical evidence to support that claim. For your last question, yes I do. I sometimes take over the abandoned project to maintain it too. Some open source users never contribute in any way, some do. I’m not sure why there’s a need to dismiss the existence of the latter kind of users. No one is claiming all users should be like that.
    - KolenCh 3y ago
      Attached to a wrong parent and can’t edit or delete any more.
- lynndotpy 3y ago
  I don't get the point you're making. Yes, the popularity of technologies is impacted by the popularity of related technologies. My argument is that Rust is certainly going to remain relevant for the next 20 years or so. When this project is no longer maintained, it probably won't be because Rust is no longer being developed, and it probably won't be because nobody writes Rust around. If Lapce were written in something like Zig or Crystal, I wouldn't feel so certain about that. (Not a knock to Zig or Crystal.)
  - HarHarVeryFunny 3y ago
    > I don't get the point you're making Just that Emacs was written almost a half century ago, and is still thriving despite being written in a language (LISP) that is basically obsolete. > My argument is that Rust is certainly going to remain relevant for the next 20 years or so Maybe, maybe not. Look at how quickly Perl (so promising to begin with) disappeared to be replaced by Python. Many new languages have tried, and continue to try, to replace C++ as a better alternative, and I'm sure the next 20 years will see more popup too. Is Rust the one? If the likelihood of being around in 20 years with a still up-to-date library/tool ecosystem was the main decision making factor, then Java would probably be a safer bet.
    - lynndotpy 3y ago
      > Just that Emacs was written almost a half century ago, and is still thriving despite being written in a language (LISP) that is basically obsolete. Yes, this is true. I still stand by my point that the longevity of a language has implications for the longevity of most projects. It's a probabilistic statement with exceptions, and Emacs is exceptional. It's also worth noting that Emacs is written in Emacs Lisp, a language which is regularly updated. > Look at how quickly Perl (so promising to begin with) disappeared to be replaced by Python. Don't get me wrong, Rust's longevity is a guess. It's in the Linux kernel now, so that gives me hope that learning Rust is paying off. Cargo is fantastically nicer to use than most other languages tooling. If I'm wrong, then that means something even nicer than cargo is around, which would be very nice indeed. > If the likelihood of being around in 20 years ... was the main decision making factor, then Java would probably be a safer bet. This is true, but the premise doesn't hold. The longevity isn't the main decision making factor. No decision is even being made, and you're arguing against a point nobody is making. Please refer to my original comment: I'm only listing reasons why I like knowing something is written in Rust.

HarHarVeryFunny 3y ago

> the staying power of a language has implications for the staying power of the project So Emacs' staying power is due to being written in LISP ?!

KolenCh 3y ago
A affects B, doesn’t mean B only depends on A.
- HarHarVeryFunny 3y ago
  No, of course not, but the example does show that programming language is pretty much irrelevant. The big lie of open source is "you have the source, so you can extend it and fix bugs yourself". Of course in theory (with enough expertise and motivation) you can do these, but in practice most open source users don't contribute to the project, so the language it is written in is entirely irrelevant. When was the last time (if ever) you submitted a bug fix (not a report) for an open source tool you are using, let alone joined the project as a contributor?!
  - KolenCh 3y ago
    “Has implications” is a very weak statement. Even if it is a very small effect but measurable fits that description. “Irrelevant” is a very strong statement. It claims no effect at all. A single example does not justify the claim. You need at least some statistical evidence to support that claim. For your last question, yes I do. I sometimes take over the abandoned project to maintain it too. Some open source users never contribute in any way, some do. I’m not sure why there’s a need to dismiss the existence of the latter kind of users. No one is claiming all users should be like that.
- KolenCh 3y ago
  “Has implications” is a very weak statement. Even if it is a very small effect but measurable fits that description. “Irrelevant” is a very strong statement. It claims no effect at all. A single example does not justify the claim. You need at least some statistical evidence to support that claim. For your last question, yes I do. I sometimes take over the abandoned project to maintain it too. Some open source users never contribute in any way, some do. I’m not sure why there’s a need to dismiss the existence of the latter kind of users. No one is claiming all users should be like that.
  - KolenCh 3y ago
    Attached to a wrong parent and can’t edit or delete any more.
lynndotpy 3y ago
I don't get the point you're making. Yes, the popularity of technologies is impacted by the popularity of related technologies. My argument is that Rust is certainly going to remain relevant for the next 20 years or so. When this project is no longer maintained, it probably won't be because Rust is no longer being developed, and it probably won't be because nobody writes Rust around. If Lapce were written in something like Zig or Crystal, I wouldn't feel so certain about that. (Not a knock to Zig or Crystal.)
- HarHarVeryFunny 3y ago
  > I don't get the point you're making Just that Emacs was written almost a half century ago, and is still thriving despite being written in a language (LISP) that is basically obsolete. > My argument is that Rust is certainly going to remain relevant for the next 20 years or so Maybe, maybe not. Look at how quickly Perl (so promising to begin with) disappeared to be replaced by Python. Many new languages have tried, and continue to try, to replace C++ as a better alternative, and I'm sure the next 20 years will see more popup too. Is Rust the one? If the likelihood of being around in 20 years with a still up-to-date library/tool ecosystem was the main decision making factor, then Java would probably be a safer bet.
  - lynndotpy 3y ago
    > Just that Emacs was written almost a half century ago, and is still thriving despite being written in a language (LISP) that is basically obsolete. Yes, this is true. I still stand by my point that the longevity of a language has implications for the longevity of most projects. It's a probabilistic statement with exceptions, and Emacs is exceptional. It's also worth noting that Emacs is written in Emacs Lisp, a language which is regularly updated. > Look at how quickly Perl (so promising to begin with) disappeared to be replaced by Python. Don't get me wrong, Rust's longevity is a guess. It's in the Linux kernel now, so that gives me hope that learning Rust is paying off. Cargo is fantastically nicer to use than most other languages tooling. If I'm wrong, then that means something even nicer than cargo is around, which would be very nice indeed. > If the likelihood of being around in 20 years ... was the main decision making factor, then Java would probably be a safer bet. This is true, but the premise doesn't hold. The longevity isn't the main decision making factor. No decision is even being made, and you're arguing against a point nobody is making. Please refer to my original comment: I'm only listing reasons why I like knowing something is written in Rust.