33 ms·

[flagged]

by low_tech_love 2y ago

[flagged]

trumpeta 2y ago
It's meant to imply that it's as performant as, but safer than c/c++.
- bboozzoo 2y ago
  But not necessarily less buggy or more useful than the counterparts (if there even are any).
  - kstrauser 2y ago
    It does imply there are likely to be different classes of bugs. If the thing compiles at all, someone's done the work to get the types right, and implement all the arms of match expressions, and written at least basic error handling. The errors are more likely to be high-level logic issues that you'd face in any code, not so much trivial implementation mistakes.
sirwhinesalot 2y ago
Due to Rust's safety guarantees there's a perception that software written in Rust is automatically safer than software written in its direct competitors C and C++. This is not necessarily true, you can write unsafe Rust code and you can write safe C++ code, but it does seem to hold in practice that the guardrails imposed by Rust help quite a bit in stopping devs from making really stupid mistakes. That would be the "thrustworthiness" implied by the use of Rust.
- bitexploder 2y ago
  And a VMM is going to require a lot of unsafe rust code. There are strategies to minimize it to make that surface easier to audit, but it is not a panacea for systems programming gremlins.
  - monocasa 2y ago
    A paravisor actually doesn't really need that much.
  - sirwhinesalot 2y ago
    No question, just pointing out where the *perceived* trustworthiness comes from. If it helps for something like a VMM it's a whole other story. Marketing gimmick.
  - nicce 2y ago
    It is manager, not runner. Does it require that much unsafe?
    - gpm 2y ago
      Out of 413,842 non-empty lines of rust code in the repository (including comments) there are 2006 instances of "unsafe", 255 of which are of the form "unsafe_" (definitely not unsafe blocks, mostly of the form #![forbid(unsafe_code)] which is an instruction to the linter to forbid unsafe blocks in the module) leaving slightly less than 1751 unsafe blocks. (Still counting comments, and type signature annotations on function pointers, and so on, but most of those 1751 will be actual unsafe blocks. A block can of course be multiple lines of code). I don't really know what a VMM consists of, so I'm mostly surprised that this project is half a million lines of code.
      - estebank 2y ago
        For this kind of analysis, https://github.com/geiger-rs/cargo-geiger https://github.com/geiger-rs/cargo-geiger comes in handy.
        gpm 2y ago
        Yeah, I tried that before resorting to just using `rg`, unfortunately this issue prevents it from working: https://github.com/geiger-rs/cargo-geiger/issues/523 https://github.com/geiger-rs/cargo-geiger/issues/523
- kstrauser 2y ago
  For myself only, there's also an implication that perhaps the authors are a bit more concerned with safety and security in general. (Don't reply with counterexamples. I know them already. I mean that as a trend, not a solid rule.) That is, the sort of person who might pick Rust for its features might correlate with the sort of person who cares more about those properties in the first place. That doesn't mean they're experts who can execute the ideas flawlessly, or that someone slogging in C couldn't carefully built the same project. I do think it means they're more likely to prioritize safety (yes, it's not 100% safe; yes, you can write insecure code in Rust; don't "correct" me) as an inherent design goal than maybe someone cranking it out in assembler.
  - hulitu 2y ago
    > For myself only, there's also an implication that perhaps the authors are a bit more concerned with safety and security in general. (Don't reply with counterexamples. I know them already. I mean that as a trend, not a solid rule.) That is, the sort of person who might pick Rust for its features might correlate with the sort of person who cares more about those properties in the first place I haven't seen any causation between SW and their creator. A good example: Hans Reiser.
pjmlp 2y ago
Yes we do, just look at the years following up the introduction of XYZ language, be it on BBS, Compuserve, Prodigy, Usenet, Dejanews, or whatever is the main communications channel of the day.
Y_Y 2y ago
Do you not remember ten years ago when this was a thing with Python? It's an effective evangelism tactic. Super annoying, but it "works" in some sense. I consider it like "YouTube face", I tolerate it because even good projects or creators have to play the game to some extent or get washed away in the crapflood.
- Klonoar 2y ago
  HN in particular has a long history of this kind of thing, e.g “Written in Ruby”. (Or if you’ve been around super long, “written in Lisp”.)
- tcfhgj 2y ago
  I doubt that a GitHub README is used for language evangelism. If at all, it's project promotion. Also, I don't find it annoying, but helpful, because I care - amongst other things - about the language of open source software projects.
  - Y_Y 2y ago
    > I doubt that a GitHub README is used for language evangelism. Perhaps you should reconsider this. OpenVMM split up its docs and there isn't much in the actual README, but a few seconds investigation led me to https://github.com/microsoft/openvmm/blob/main/Guide/src/dev_guide/dev_tools.md#rust-based-tooling https://github.com/microsoft/openvmm/blob/main/Guide/src/dev... , for example. > Also, I don't find it annoying, but helpful, because I care - amongst other things - about the language of open source software projects. Come on, this is not even a good strawman. It's very easy to find out the language of you want to know, and it's possible to inform without evangelism.
    - tcfhgj 2y ago
      > OpenVMM split up its docs and there isn't much in the actual README, but a few seconds investigation led me to https://github.com/microsoft/openvmm/blob/main/Guide/src/dev https://github.com/microsoft/openvmm/blob/main/Guide/src/dev... , for example. this is a reason to reconsider my statement why? > Come on, this is not even a good strawman. It's not a straw man at all. It's my opinion. > It's very easy to find out the language of you want to know, and it's possible to inform without evangelism. Indeed, but nothing makes it more straight forward than the language being mentioned in the HN News title
doublerabbit 2y ago
I wait for the day when someone adds "Written in COBOL" to their HN project title.
- garblegarble 2y ago
  Technically somebody already has: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24370792 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24370792
  - roetlich 2y ago
    Also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23189918 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23189918 Not literally "in Cobol" in the title, but almost. And in both cases the primary novelty is that it's written in Cobol.
INTPenis 2y ago
I don't think it's any secret that Rust is a very hyped up language, has been for 5 years already. I've been saying for years now that if Rust was a stock, I'd be investing. Meaning, if I was a young programmer I would probably take the time to learn Rust, because it's going to be in high demand.
netbsdusers 2y ago
It's the in-thing at the moment so it certainly attracts attention. Make sure to claim to be "Blazing fast [Rocket Emoji]" in the README too for good measure.
ordu 2y ago
> It's not something I see often with other programming languages Lisp software also presented with "Lisp" in the title. Lisp programs are rarer, so you see "Lisp" in titles less frequently than "Rust" but I believe that any Lisp program proudly claims that it was written in Lisp.
hypeatei 2y ago
[flagged]
- felbane 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - rizky05 2y ago
    [dead]
  - keybored 2y ago
    (term simplification, halt loop) It’s fascinating that a forum full of technical people make comments that lampoon the meta commentary by making an nth-order meta comment.
    - seanw444 2y ago
      Technical people have fun too. I think.
      - keybored 2y ago
        This statement relies on self-reported inner state. It is inherently unreliable. ;)
- efitz 2y ago
  This comment was written in plain text.
- hulitu 2y ago
  Maybe people are sick of promisses. It is like talking about your car and saying that it is made of titanium and copper and composite materials while not saying anything about actual features (mileage, safety equipment).
- low_tech_love 2y ago
  Sorry for that, I never saw one before. Maybe I should’ve searched before posting. Interesting that my question has caused this kind of response.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
dijit 2y ago
I agree, but if we tried to reason why: I would argue that it's because writing rust code that compiles is harder. We tend to ascribe significance to things that are percieved as difficult, back in the day for example a book was hugely important, so authors were revered, but now with the advent of easier access to printing presses an author is not similarly revered. Making small modules here and there, even if hard, is deemed less effort, and similarly gluing small modules together is deemed even less significant of an achievement, so what you're solving becomes much more important than how, since significance in the process is diminished. Since Rust is harder than C++ (making compiling software is easier, even if there's runtime errors after all) - we ascribe significance to the fact that it was used.
tupolef 2y ago
It may seem proselite and overly highlighted, but personally I find it very practical. Whenever I review a tool, or look for an alternative, I always look at the state of the maintenance and the choice of programming language, mainly to eliminate, as much as possible, the many tools written in Javascript and Python when it is not suitable. I will not necessarily prefer a tool written in Rust, but at least it is rarely a flaw.
oguz-ismail 2y ago
It's usually the only selling point.
diego_moita 2y ago
I take it as tribalism. Rust culture is a lot like socialism, libertarians, fundamentalist religions, vegans, etc. They see themselves apart from the "mainstream", as rebels, revolutionaries, etc. In their beginning, Java and Python were like that, too. Lua, Haskell and Kotlin also do the same. Golang is more discrete.
- monocasa 2y ago
  I feel like "written in Go" is the at least the second most likely language to be pimped in an hn title.
rascul 2y ago
> It's not something I see often with other programming languages Search HN stories for "written in", sort by date, and in the past couple weeks there are of course a number of "written in rust" but also c, python, ruby, go, c++, lisp, java, javascript, flutter, crystal, and react. Rust has the most instances currently but it's also common enough here with other languages. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=%22written%20in%22&sort=byDate&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
- ericyd 2y ago
  This is interesting and clearly a true claim, but anecdotally I feel like the combination of 1) lands on HN homepage and 2) includes "written in" in the title is heavily biased towards Rust. I don't know how to search for those two qualifiers to prove or disapprove my feelings though.
  - keybored 2y ago
    I did a simpler count: the number of comments in this thread that either (without also talking about the content of the submission) (1) only talk about Rust (2) only talk about programming languages (3) talk about how programming language choice impacts the project or the quality of the software (or how it might not be a guarantee of those things) (4) talk about how a VMM being written in Rust/not being written in Rust is good (this last one is the closest to the submission topic but still not about the submission topic). 45/64.
    - estebank 2y ago
      It wasn't until this comment that made me realize that using "written in Rust" as rage click bait is such a "useful" strategy here, because it will inevitably attract plenty of comments about the mentioning of the language. Ironically, the people complaining end up increasing the post's rank by engaging more.
      - steveklabnik 2y ago
flanked-evergl 2y ago
I saw this for go all the time a couple of years back.
kreetx 2y ago
It seems as if the implementation detail is the feature. Can't the program stand for itself?
- acdha 2y ago
  It is a useful feature. We’ve had tons and tons of bugs caused by C/C++ misfeatures which is both why Rust was invented and why users are looking for more stable alternatives after decades on the patch of the week treadmill. A tool like this is aimed at a technical audience who will see the appeal of a tool which is safer and easier to work on.
  - kreetx 2y ago
    Right, but I suspect people would like to use it to run VMs rather than start developing it. If the indent is to invite developers who "know rust", then that is the wrong measuring bar (IMO, of course), as you'd want developers who are interested in hypervisors instead of a specific language.
    - acdha 2y ago
      As a user of VMs, I would value memory safety because hypervisor exploits are nasty and patching is higher risk.
      - kreetx 2y ago
        Not disagreeing with you on the memory safety. It's just that the way "written in Rust" is used, it seems like a marketing gimmick to invite anyone who knows (or maybe wants to learn) Rust. Shows (IMO!) the weakness of the project rather than its seriousness.
        acdha 2y ago
        I haven’t observed people taking that as a learning opportunity as opposed to an expression of a modern version of an existing tool which emphasizes safety.
osigurdson 2y ago
"Written in Rust" is a brand that confers fast and safe. Like any brand, there is some truth to it but no rigorous guarantees. If Rust becomes more widely used that brand will likely start to fade.
- throwup238 2y ago
  It also confers “cargo install” if it’s an app.
justmarc 2y ago
One thing is for sure, it's going to help it be a more stable, robust piece of software, that's already a big deal.
jeroenhd 2y ago
I've also seen this done for C and modern C++. I believe it's done to suggest something (i.e. Rust is memory safe, C is usually fast, modern C++ is used to distinguish from the terrible old C++, Java runs on the JVM so it's relatively easy to use cross platform, Kotlin is for Java software that doesn't throw random null pointers every week, etc.) The same tokens are also used for stuff that is designed to run on bare metal/containers/kubernetes/"""serverless""".
evanjrowley 2y ago
Promotional PR tactics benefit programmers of non-mainstream languages by raising awareness, interest, the labor market, and hopefully professional jobs working on the particular technology.
ravenstine 2y ago
When something needs to be constantly emphasized, it makes me suspicious. The more I read "[...] in Rust", the less I will be surprised if Rust is considered harmful in another 5 to 10 years.
mrweasel 2y ago
That was Go a 10 years ago, now it's Rust. Some people feel the need to talk loudly about their tools, which can be annoying, but also helps put it on the radar for the rest of us. Once we're aware of something we can assess it for ourselves and maybe we stick with it and maybe we go back to what we where doing before, or move on to the next thing. The Rust fans are pushing it a bit, I understand why they love the language, but I don't, so the insisting hammering on "written in Rust" can push me away from certain tools. In the end it will die down and the loudest will move on to the next language, once the Rust hype has been tapered out.

[flagged]

trumpeta 2y ago

It's meant to imply that it's as performant as, but safer than c/c++.

bboozzoo 2y ago
But not necessarily less buggy or more useful than the counterparts (if there even are any).
- kstrauser 2y ago
  It does imply there are likely to be different classes of bugs. If the thing compiles at all, someone's done the work to get the types right, and implement all the arms of match expressions, and written at least basic error handling. The errors are more likely to be high-level logic issues that you'd face in any code, not so much trivial implementation mistakes.

sirwhinesalot 2y ago

Due to Rust's safety guarantees there's a perception that software written in Rust is automatically safer than software written in its direct competitors C and C++. This is not necessarily true, you can write unsafe Rust code and you can write safe C++ code, but it does seem to hold in practice that the guardrails imposed by Rust help quite a bit in stopping devs from making really stupid mistakes. That would be the "thrustworthiness" implied by the use of Rust.

bitexploder 2y ago
And a VMM is going to require a lot of unsafe rust code. There are strategies to minimize it to make that surface easier to audit, but it is not a panacea for systems programming gremlins.
- monocasa 2y ago
  A paravisor actually doesn't really need that much.
- sirwhinesalot 2y ago
  No question, just pointing out where the *perceived* trustworthiness comes from. If it helps for something like a VMM it's a whole other story. Marketing gimmick.
- nicce 2y ago
  It is manager, not runner. Does it require that much unsafe?
  - gpm 2y ago
    Out of 413,842 non-empty lines of rust code in the repository (including comments) there are 2006 instances of "unsafe", 255 of which are of the form "unsafe_" (definitely not unsafe blocks, mostly of the form #![forbid(unsafe_code)] which is an instruction to the linter to forbid unsafe blocks in the module) leaving slightly less than 1751 unsafe blocks. (Still counting comments, and type signature annotations on function pointers, and so on, but most of those 1751 will be actual unsafe blocks. A block can of course be multiple lines of code). I don't really know what a VMM consists of, so I'm mostly surprised that this project is half a million lines of code.
    - estebank 2y ago
      For this kind of analysis, https://github.com/geiger-rs/cargo-geiger https://github.com/geiger-rs/cargo-geiger comes in handy.
      - gpm 2y ago
        Yeah, I tried that before resorting to just using `rg`, unfortunately this issue prevents it from working: https://github.com/geiger-rs/cargo-geiger/issues/523 https://github.com/geiger-rs/cargo-geiger/issues/523
kstrauser 2y ago
For myself only, there's also an implication that perhaps the authors are a bit more concerned with safety and security in general. (Don't reply with counterexamples. I know them already. I mean that as a trend, not a solid rule.) That is, the sort of person who might pick Rust for its features might correlate with the sort of person who cares more about those properties in the first place. That doesn't mean they're experts who can execute the ideas flawlessly, or that someone slogging in C couldn't carefully built the same project. I do think it means they're more likely to prioritize safety (yes, it's not 100% safe; yes, you can write insecure code in Rust; don't "correct" me) as an inherent design goal than maybe someone cranking it out in assembler.
- hulitu 2y ago
  > For myself only, there's also an implication that perhaps the authors are a bit more concerned with safety and security in general. (Don't reply with counterexamples. I know them already. I mean that as a trend, not a solid rule.) That is, the sort of person who might pick Rust for its features might correlate with the sort of person who cares more about those properties in the first place I haven't seen any causation between SW and their creator. A good example: Hans Reiser.

pjmlp 2y ago

Yes we do, just look at the years following up the introduction of XYZ language, be it on BBS, Compuserve, Prodigy, Usenet, Dejanews, or whatever is the main communications channel of the day.

Y_Y 2y ago

Do you not remember ten years ago when this was a thing with Python? It's an effective evangelism tactic. Super annoying, but it "works" in some sense. I consider it like "YouTube face", I tolerate it because even good projects or creators have to play the game to some extent or get washed away in the crapflood.

Klonoar 2y ago
HN in particular has a long history of this kind of thing, e.g “Written in Ruby”. (Or if you’ve been around super long, “written in Lisp”.)
tcfhgj 2y ago
I doubt that a GitHub README is used for language evangelism. If at all, it's project promotion. Also, I don't find it annoying, but helpful, because I care - amongst other things - about the language of open source software projects.
- Y_Y 2y ago
  > I doubt that a GitHub README is used for language evangelism. Perhaps you should reconsider this. OpenVMM split up its docs and there isn't much in the actual README, but a few seconds investigation led me to https://github.com/microsoft/openvmm/blob/main/Guide/src/dev_guide/dev_tools.md#rust-based-tooling https://github.com/microsoft/openvmm/blob/main/Guide/src/dev... , for example. > Also, I don't find it annoying, but helpful, because I care - amongst other things - about the language of open source software projects. Come on, this is not even a good strawman. It's very easy to find out the language of you want to know, and it's possible to inform without evangelism.
  - tcfhgj 2y ago
    > OpenVMM split up its docs and there isn't much in the actual README, but a few seconds investigation led me to https://github.com/microsoft/openvmm/blob/main/Guide/src/dev https://github.com/microsoft/openvmm/blob/main/Guide/src/dev... , for example. this is a reason to reconsider my statement why? > Come on, this is not even a good strawman. It's not a straw man at all. It's my opinion. > It's very easy to find out the language of you want to know, and it's possible to inform without evangelism. Indeed, but nothing makes it more straight forward than the language being mentioned in the HN News title

doublerabbit 2y ago

I wait for the day when someone adds "Written in COBOL" to their HN project title.

garblegarble 2y ago
Technically somebody already has: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24370792 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24370792
- roetlich 2y ago
  Also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23189918 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23189918 Not literally "in Cobol" in the title, but almost. And in both cases the primary novelty is that it's written in Cobol.

INTPenis 2y ago

I don't think it's any secret that Rust is a very hyped up language, has been for 5 years already. I've been saying for years now that if Rust was a stock, I'd be investing. Meaning, if I was a young programmer I would probably take the time to learn Rust, because it's going to be in high demand.

netbsdusers 2y ago

It's the in-thing at the moment so it certainly attracts attention. Make sure to claim to be "Blazing fast [Rocket Emoji]" in the README too for good measure.

ordu 2y ago

> It's not something I see often with other programming languages Lisp software also presented with "Lisp" in the title. Lisp programs are rarer, so you see "Lisp" in titles less frequently than "Rust" but I believe that any Lisp program proudly claims that it was written in Lisp.

hypeatei 2y ago

[flagged]

felbane 2y ago
[flagged]
- rizky05 2y ago
  [dead]
- keybored 2y ago
  (term simplification, halt loop) It’s fascinating that a forum full of technical people make comments that lampoon the meta commentary by making an nth-order meta comment.
  - seanw444 2y ago
    Technical people have fun too. I think.
    - keybored 2y ago
      This statement relies on self-reported inner state. It is inherently unreliable. ;)
efitz 2y ago
This comment was written in plain text.
hulitu 2y ago
Maybe people are sick of promisses. It is like talking about your car and saying that it is made of titanium and copper and composite materials while not saying anything about actual features (mileage, safety equipment).
low_tech_love 2y ago
Sorry for that, I never saw one before. Maybe I should’ve searched before posting. Interesting that my question has caused this kind of response.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

dijit 2y ago

I agree, but if we tried to reason why: I would argue that it's because writing rust code that compiles is harder. We tend to ascribe significance to things that are percieved as difficult, back in the day for example a book was hugely important, so authors were revered, but now with the advent of easier access to printing presses an author is not similarly revered. Making small modules here and there, even if hard, is deemed less effort, and similarly gluing small modules together is deemed even less significant of an achievement, so what you're solving becomes much more important than how, since significance in the process is diminished. Since Rust is harder than C++ (making compiling software is easier, even if there's runtime errors after all) - we ascribe significance to the fact that it was used.

tupolef 2y ago

It may seem proselite and overly highlighted, but personally I find it very practical. Whenever I review a tool, or look for an alternative, I always look at the state of the maintenance and the choice of programming language, mainly to eliminate, as much as possible, the many tools written in Javascript and Python when it is not suitable. I will not necessarily prefer a tool written in Rust, but at least it is rarely a flaw.

oguz-ismail 2y ago

It's usually the only selling point.

diego_moita 2y ago

I take it as tribalism. Rust culture is a lot like socialism, libertarians, fundamentalist religions, vegans, etc. They see themselves apart from the "mainstream", as rebels, revolutionaries, etc. In their beginning, Java and Python were like that, too. Lua, Haskell and Kotlin also do the same. Golang is more discrete.

monocasa 2y ago
I feel like "written in Go" is the at least the second most likely language to be pimped in an hn title.

rascul 2y ago

> It's not something I see often with other programming languages Search HN stories for "written in", sort by date, and in the past couple weeks there are of course a number of "written in rust" but also c, python, ruby, go, c++, lisp, java, javascript, flutter, crystal, and react. Rust has the most instances currently but it's also common enough here with other languages. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=%22written%20in%22&sort=byDate&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

ericyd 2y ago
This is interesting and clearly a true claim, but anecdotally I feel like the combination of 1) lands on HN homepage and 2) includes "written in" in the title is heavily biased towards Rust. I don't know how to search for those two qualifiers to prove or disapprove my feelings though.
- keybored 2y ago
  I did a simpler count: the number of comments in this thread that either (without also talking about the content of the submission) (1) only talk about Rust (2) only talk about programming languages (3) talk about how programming language choice impacts the project or the quality of the software (or how it might not be a guarantee of those things) (4) talk about how a VMM being written in Rust/not being written in Rust is good (this last one is the closest to the submission topic but still not about the submission topic). 45/64.
  - estebank 2y ago
    It wasn't until this comment that made me realize that using "written in Rust" as rage click bait is such a "useful" strategy here, because it will inevitably attract plenty of comments about the mentioning of the language. Ironically, the people complaining end up increasing the post's rank by engaging more.
    - steveklabnik 2y ago

flanked-evergl 2y ago

I saw this for go all the time a couple of years back.

kreetx 2y ago

It seems as if the implementation detail is the feature. Can't the program stand for itself?

acdha 2y ago
It is a useful feature. We’ve had tons and tons of bugs caused by C/C++ misfeatures which is both why Rust was invented and why users are looking for more stable alternatives after decades on the patch of the week treadmill. A tool like this is aimed at a technical audience who will see the appeal of a tool which is safer and easier to work on.
- kreetx 2y ago
  Right, but I suspect people would like to use it to run VMs rather than start developing it. If the indent is to invite developers who "know rust", then that is the wrong measuring bar (IMO, of course), as you'd want developers who are interested in hypervisors instead of a specific language.
  - acdha 2y ago
    As a user of VMs, I would value memory safety because hypervisor exploits are nasty and patching is higher risk.
    - kreetx 2y ago
      Not disagreeing with you on the memory safety. It's just that the way "written in Rust" is used, it seems like a marketing gimmick to invite anyone who knows (or maybe wants to learn) Rust. Shows (IMO!) the weakness of the project rather than its seriousness.
      - acdha 2y ago
        I haven’t observed people taking that as a learning opportunity as opposed to an expression of a modern version of an existing tool which emphasizes safety.

osigurdson 2y ago

"Written in Rust" is a brand that confers fast and safe. Like any brand, there is some truth to it but no rigorous guarantees. If Rust becomes more widely used that brand will likely start to fade.

throwup238 2y ago
It also confers “cargo install” if it’s an app.

justmarc 2y ago

One thing is for sure, it's going to help it be a more stable, robust piece of software, that's already a big deal.

jeroenhd 2y ago

I've also seen this done for C and modern C++. I believe it's done to suggest something (i.e. Rust is memory safe, C is usually fast, modern C++ is used to distinguish from the terrible old C++, Java runs on the JVM so it's relatively easy to use cross platform, Kotlin is for Java software that doesn't throw random null pointers every week, etc.) The same tokens are also used for stuff that is designed to run on bare metal/containers/kubernetes/"""serverless""".

evanjrowley 2y ago

Promotional PR tactics benefit programmers of non-mainstream languages by raising awareness, interest, the labor market, and hopefully professional jobs working on the particular technology.

ravenstine 2y ago

When something needs to be constantly emphasized, it makes me suspicious. The more I read "[...] in Rust", the less I will be surprised if Rust is considered harmful in another 5 to 10 years.

mrweasel 2y ago

That was Go a 10 years ago, now it's Rust. Some people feel the need to talk loudly about their tools, which can be annoying, but also helps put it on the radar for the rest of us. Once we're aware of something we can assess it for ourselves and maybe we stick with it and maybe we go back to what we where doing before, or move on to the next thing. The Rust fans are pushing it a bit, I understand why they love the language, but I don't, so the insisting hammering on "written in Rust" can push me away from certain tools. In the end it will die down and the loudest will move on to the next language, once the Rust hype has been tapered out.