5 ms·
When I see people on my team (myself included) shoot themselves in the foot over and over with C++, sometimes causing very costly production bugs, and yet I kno
by xedrac 3y ago
When I see people on my team (myself included) shoot themselves in the foot over and over with C++, sometimes causing very costly production bugs, and yet I know of a tool that could have prevented nearly all of that pain at compile time, I am going to risk being disliked in order to help lift everyone up. Most people that I mentor on Rust have become completely sold on it after some initial resistance. I don't like change for change's sake, or rewriting things in a new language unless there is some really big payoff.
- tayo42 3y agoI think that argument makes sense in a vacuum. Like considering nothing else, yes, 100%, rusts compiler prevents more bugs then c++ would. I don't think bugs are the only way to waste time or break things. In a large company or complex project your never talking about one small code base. There are inter-dependencies within code and outside code. Rewriting all of anything significant is a huge undertaking. In reality your introducing a new language in addition to cpp/java/go. Its another support task. Its another thing to context switch between when your working on "the legacy" repo and the new stuff. You need to be skilled in both languages. Its like any team that starts writing automation and support projects in python, when their main language is something else. You get trash python scripts and programs. Its another language where technically the domain is right, but the skill is lacking.
- xedrac 3y agoYes, there's definitely a cost of introducing Rust to an existing project. But there are a ton of projects that could also benefit greatly from it, such that it'd be a net benefit even in the short term, and a huge benefit in the long term. I'm not advocating for people to blindly add it to their project.