5 ms·

"Totally normal for Rust activists." sighs Can we leave meaningless emotions out of such discussions. You clearly already have an opinion about "Rust activist

"Totally normal for Rust activists." sighs Can we leave meaningless emotions out of such discussions. You clearly already have an opinion about "Rust activists" in particular. What are the pros and cons of using Rust in a kernel, that's where it gets interesting.

blub 2y ago
Pushing Rust while slamming C++ is by far not an innocent, purely technical discussion. There’s a significant degree of ideology and grassroots activism behind this, which deserves to be criticized. The person which posted the Rust-positive quote is usually very supportive of Rust and chose the one quote which puts C++ in a bad light, yet conveniently forgot to include the numerous criticisms of Rust from BSD developers and the fact that one of the main devs prefers C++ for example.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- kelnos 2y ago
  > Pushing Rust while slamming C++ is by far not an innocent, purely technical discussion. It is when the discussion is about the merits of Rust over C++. I will slam C++ all day long and praise Rust. But I'll also acknowledge that it's easier to do some things in C++ (and C) than in Rust.
- pdimitar 2y ago
  Would you say Microsoft and Google are slamming C and C++ when they said that from 60% to 75% of all bugs they stumbled upon are memory safety bugs?
  - bluGill 2y ago
    Anyone who can't tell the difference between C vs C++ and so put then in a single 'and' as if there is no differece is slamming C++. How does modern C++ compare to old code? is the issue only where we must interoperate?
    - pdimitar 2y ago
      "Can't tell the difference between C and C++" is non-charitable interpretation and is not important here, the important part was memory safety.
      - bluGill 2y ago
        I have seen too many people talk about C and C++ in what quickly becomes clear is a case of they cannot tell the difference. As such I just assume the non-charitable interpretation - I think it is reasonable to assume anybody who knows modern C++ will want to carefully discuss it separate from C.
        pdimitar 2y ago
        Sure, I can accept that happens. Having in mind that C++ has a metric ton of footguns as well as C, I am not sure the difference is very meaningful in practical terms. After all, "if you know what you are doing there will not be memory safety bugs" is said by the C proponents as well.
    - orangeboats 2y ago
      I like the point made by some other comment in this thread: The "modern C++" argument is tiring. It only truly works if C++ has a hard mode-switch between modern and legacy C++, which it doesn't have. Things like smart pointers reduce memory bugs, true, but Absolutely Nothing in modern C++ disallow you to mix in raw pointers too. At best you have conventions requiring people to utilize the modern features, but that is asking the humans writing the code to be disciplined, and you know very well we are not. Mistakes happen. If modern C++ has a `legacy` block that works in a similar vein as Rust's `unsafe` then perhaps your position would have been much stronger. Alas, it'd be very weak still because modern C++ continues to carry the baggages of legacy C++.
minkles 2y ago
I'd like to chip in with another perspective here. I don't think we can. The reason people use terms like Rust activist is because some of the user community is quite frankly unhinged. On numerous occasions across various sites, a helpful Rust user will pop up with an out of context and unwanted discussion fork into rewriting everything in Rust or misapplying it to a problem which is unrelated. When reminded thanks but no thanks this is usually responded to with either "you're one of the ones that doesn't get it" or something much more vicious. I had one on here yesterday. I had on in person at work last week. This is a real problem because any zealot of this level serves only to discredit the product by association. I have no opinion on Rust other than I don't have the time to learn it at the moment and it doesn't look like it solves any problems in the domain of things I care about at the moment. I have no opinion past that. I am interested in technical discussion on it in case it overlaps a problem domain I am interested in, which is why I am on this thread :)
- OtomotO 2y ago
  Some people are unhinged... it doesn't matter what's the topic. Look around the world, there is a lot of stuff you don't agree with probably. Some people don't see the Cons, they don't want to see the Cons... be happy for them to be so enthusiastic about a topic they love and ignore the rest of what they say ;)
- pdimitar 2y ago
  > The reason people use terms like Rust activist is because some of the user community is quite frankly unhinged. Every community has them. Every single one. Find me a group of a super niche hobby, say 20 people in total. I can bet my neck I'll still find at least one of them in there who is a zealot. Not sure why people focus on the 0.01% of the Rust users who are fanatics. No they are not on important positions at all, they are some frustrated people who scream on Reddit and sometimes on HN, that's it. > This is a real problem because any zealot of this level serves only to discredit the product by association. No it does not. How did you even do this logical leap? Let me give you an example of what you did just say: At some point somebody somewhere used their laptop to physically assault someone and caused them a head trauma. So surely, laptops are now discredited and you should never use one, correct? Now replace "laptop" with literally anything else you have ever used. > I am interested in technical discussion on it in case it overlaps a problem domain I am interested in, which is why I am on this thread :) 99.9% of the discussions where Rust is involved are technical. You should consider how you are picking your discussion threads if that percentage is much lower for you. I have not stumbled upon a Rust zealot on HN in at least 6 months. Last one I saw on Reddit was 3-4 months ago (though admittedly I gave up on Reddit's technical forums because they seem full of very emotional people).

blub 2y ago

Pushing Rust while slamming C++ is by far not an innocent, purely technical discussion. There’s a significant degree of ideology and grassroots activism behind this, which deserves to be criticized. The person which posted the Rust-positive quote is usually very supportive of Rust and chose the one quote which puts C++ in a bad light, yet conveniently forgot to include the numerous criticisms of Rust from BSD developers and the fact that one of the main devs prefers C++ for example.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
kelnos 2y ago
> Pushing Rust while slamming C++ is by far not an innocent, purely technical discussion. It is when the discussion is about the merits of Rust over C++. I will slam C++ all day long and praise Rust. But I'll also acknowledge that it's easier to do some things in C++ (and C) than in Rust.
pdimitar 2y ago
Would you say Microsoft and Google are slamming C and C++ when they said that from 60% to 75% of all bugs they stumbled upon are memory safety bugs?
- bluGill 2y ago
  Anyone who can't tell the difference between C vs C++ and so put then in a single 'and' as if there is no differece is slamming C++. How does modern C++ compare to old code? is the issue only where we must interoperate?
  - pdimitar 2y ago
    "Can't tell the difference between C and C++" is non-charitable interpretation and is not important here, the important part was memory safety.
    - bluGill 2y ago
      I have seen too many people talk about C and C++ in what quickly becomes clear is a case of they cannot tell the difference. As such I just assume the non-charitable interpretation - I think it is reasonable to assume anybody who knows modern C++ will want to carefully discuss it separate from C.
      - pdimitar 2y ago
        Sure, I can accept that happens. Having in mind that C++ has a metric ton of footguns as well as C, I am not sure the difference is very meaningful in practical terms. After all, "if you know what you are doing there will not be memory safety bugs" is said by the C proponents as well.
  - orangeboats 2y ago
    I like the point made by some other comment in this thread: The "modern C++" argument is tiring. It only truly works if C++ has a hard mode-switch between modern and legacy C++, which it doesn't have. Things like smart pointers reduce memory bugs, true, but Absolutely Nothing in modern C++ disallow you to mix in raw pointers too. At best you have conventions requiring people to utilize the modern features, but that is asking the humans writing the code to be disciplined, and you know very well we are not. Mistakes happen. If modern C++ has a `legacy` block that works in a similar vein as Rust's `unsafe` then perhaps your position would have been much stronger. Alas, it'd be very weak still because modern C++ continues to carry the baggages of legacy C++.

minkles 2y ago

I'd like to chip in with another perspective here. I don't think we can. The reason people use terms like Rust activist is because some of the user community is quite frankly unhinged. On numerous occasions across various sites, a helpful Rust user will pop up with an out of context and unwanted discussion fork into rewriting everything in Rust or misapplying it to a problem which is unrelated. When reminded thanks but no thanks this is usually responded to with either "you're one of the ones that doesn't get it" or something much more vicious. I had one on here yesterday. I had on in person at work last week. This is a real problem because any zealot of this level serves only to discredit the product by association. I have no opinion on Rust other than I don't have the time to learn it at the moment and it doesn't look like it solves any problems in the domain of things I care about at the moment. I have no opinion past that. I am interested in technical discussion on it in case it overlaps a problem domain I am interested in, which is why I am on this thread :)

OtomotO 2y ago
Some people are unhinged... it doesn't matter what's the topic. Look around the world, there is a lot of stuff you don't agree with probably. Some people don't see the Cons, they don't want to see the Cons... be happy for them to be so enthusiastic about a topic they love and ignore the rest of what they say ;)
pdimitar 2y ago
> The reason people use terms like Rust activist is because some of the user community is quite frankly unhinged. Every community has them. Every single one. Find me a group of a super niche hobby, say 20 people in total. I can bet my neck I'll still find at least one of them in there who is a zealot. Not sure why people focus on the 0.01% of the Rust users who are fanatics. No they are not on important positions at all, they are some frustrated people who scream on Reddit and sometimes on HN, that's it. > This is a real problem because any zealot of this level serves only to discredit the product by association. No it does not. How did you even do this logical leap? Let me give you an example of what you did just say: At some point somebody somewhere used their laptop to physically assault someone and caused them a head trauma. So surely, laptops are now discredited and you should never use one, correct? Now replace "laptop" with literally anything else you have ever used. > I am interested in technical discussion on it in case it overlaps a problem domain I am interested in, which is why I am on this thread :) 99.9% of the discussions where Rust is involved are technical. You should consider how you are picking your discussion threads if that percentage is much lower for you. I have not stumbled upon a Rust zealot on HN in at least 6 months. Last one I saw on Reddit was 3-4 months ago (though admittedly I gave up on Reddit's technical forums because they seem full of very emotional people).