3 ms·

Please read the quotation more carefully. I appreciate the author calls out the source of the data, but the claims remain overly strong, broad and unqualified.

Please read the quotation more carefully. I appreciate the author calls out the source of the data, but the claims remain overly strong, broad and unqualified. I concede this may not be the strongest example, but in my opinion, the language throughout the article, starting with the title, makes stronger claims than the evidence provided supports. I agree with the author, that these are useful projects to use for research. I'm struggling with the lack of qualification when it comes to the conclusions. Perhaps I missed it, but I also didn't see information about trade-offs experienced in the transition to Rust on these projects. Was there any change related to other kinds of vulnerabilities or defects? How did the transition to Rust impact the number of features introduced over a given time period? Were the engineers able to move as quickly in this (presumably) new-to-them language? I'm under the impression that it can take many engineers multiple years to begin to feel productive in Rust, is there any measure of throughput (even qualitative) that could be compared before, during and after that period? I'm hung up on what reads as a sales pitch that implies broad and deep benefits to any software project of any scope, scale or purpose and makes no mention of trade offs or disadvantages in exchange for this incredible benefit.

steveklabnik 2y ago
As I said, I think you're fine to be skeptical, and there's surely a lot more stuff to be researched in the future, including these questions. I was just trying to speculate on maybe why you got downvotes.
throwaway2037 2y ago
Wow, this an excellent follow-up. You shared so many interesting questions. I too want to know the answers! How about you post these as a comment to their blog post? It might spur them to write a follow-up and dive into more details and nuance.
steveklabnik 2y ago
Oh, a day later, I realized that there have been some of these questions of yours answered, but previously: > I also didn't see information about trade-offs experienced in the transition to Rust on these projects. Yeah, I mean that's just not the topic of this particular post. But they have talked about it. Specifically this, from 2023: https://opensource.googleblog.com/2023/06/rust-fact-vs-fiction-5-insights-from-googles-rust-journey-2022.html https://opensource.googleblog.com/2023/06/rust-fact-vs-ficti... > I'm under the impression that it can take many engineers multiple years to begin to feel productive in Rust, is there any measure of throughput (even qualitative) that could be compared before, during and after that period? That is something that people say, but Google found differently. As that post says, "more than 2/3 of respondents are confident in contributing to a Rust codebase within two months or less when learning Rust. Further, a third of respondents become as productive using Rust as other languages in two months or less." On this one: > Were the engineers able to move as quickly in this (presumably) new-to-them language? Regarding "presumably," 13% had Rust experience, but the rest did not. They say "a third of respondents become as productive using Rust as other languages in two months or less" and "we’ve seen no data to indicate that there is any productivity penalty for Rust relative to any other language these developers previously used at Google."
- anymouse123456 2y ago
  Thanks for such a detailed response and especially the new link, it's really helpful.

steveklabnik 2y ago

As I said, I think you're fine to be skeptical, and there's surely a lot more stuff to be researched in the future, including these questions. I was just trying to speculate on maybe why you got downvotes.

throwaway2037 2y ago

Wow, this an excellent follow-up. You shared so many interesting questions. I too want to know the answers! How about you post these as a comment to their blog post? It might spur them to write a follow-up and dive into more details and nuance.

steveklabnik 2y ago

Oh, a day later, I realized that there have been some of these questions of yours answered, but previously: > I also didn't see information about trade-offs experienced in the transition to Rust on these projects. Yeah, I mean that's just not the topic of this particular post. But they have talked about it. Specifically this, from 2023: https://opensource.googleblog.com/2023/06/rust-fact-vs-fiction-5-insights-from-googles-rust-journey-2022.html https://opensource.googleblog.com/2023/06/rust-fact-vs-ficti... > I'm under the impression that it can take many engineers multiple years to begin to feel productive in Rust, is there any measure of throughput (even qualitative) that could be compared before, during and after that period? That is something that people say, but Google found differently. As that post says, "more than 2/3 of respondents are confident in contributing to a Rust codebase within two months or less when learning Rust. Further, a third of respondents become as productive using Rust as other languages in two months or less." On this one: > Were the engineers able to move as quickly in this (presumably) new-to-them language? Regarding "presumably," 13% had Rust experience, but the rest did not. They say "a third of respondents become as productive using Rust as other languages in two months or less" and "we’ve seen no data to indicate that there is any productivity penalty for Rust relative to any other language these developers previously used at Google."

anymouse123456 2y ago
Thanks for such a detailed response and especially the new link, it's really helpful.