5 ms·

"Written in Rust" to me implied that they're willing to go with a modern tech stack. When I see that a project is written in Rust I assume that beyond the lang

"Written in Rust" to me implied that they're willing to go with a modern tech stack. When I see that a project is written in Rust I assume that beyond the language, their other technology/library/framework choices also tend torwards what is modern and unstable, rather than what is conventional and solid. That information is relevant to shaping one's view of a project. I think it makes sense to mention that you're using a modern stack. (Though Rust is already close to moving into the conventional/solid category.)

Ar-Curunir 2y ago
Traditionally this would have been written in something like C, which, while conventional, is hardly solid in security-sensitive contexts like this one.
tourmalinetaco 2y ago
I also tend to think “will lack long term support”, as I’ve seen many Rust projects where the OG devs move on to other projects. It’s fine to do that of course, but when I see “X but written in Rust” I read it as “I made this as an exercise” and not “I am making a full attempt to replace this other project”.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  That's my read too. The "Written in X" suffix to project announcements makes them sound like stunts done for attention or clout, regardless of the language used. It reads like a headline "Man travels across America, with a unicycle."
estebank 2y ago
Why is there a conflation between "modern" and "unstable", and "conventional" and "solid"? I've seen plenty of conventional things that are not solid, and plenty of modern things that were far from unstable. Or maybe I have a different threshold for what modern is. Beyond your parenthetical, what about Rust is unstable for you today? It would be interesting to me to hear that in order to see if the things that come to mind when hearing that are the same that you meant.
- zifpanachr23 2y ago
  First of all, there's no spec, no stable ABI, etc etc etc. And the language is constantly adding new features and complexities. In practical terms and in this case it probably doesn't matter, but that is what people are talking about when they say it's both modern and unstable. It's not entirely unreasonable. Note that "unstable" doesn't necessarily mean "broken". It just means that the ecosystem is likely to have changed massively looking back at code written today from some theoretical vantage point 5 years in the future.

Ar-Curunir 2y ago

Traditionally this would have been written in something like C, which, while conventional, is hardly solid in security-sensitive contexts like this one.

tourmalinetaco 2y ago

I also tend to think “will lack long term support”, as I’ve seen many Rust projects where the OG devs move on to other projects. It’s fine to do that of course, but when I see “X but written in Rust” I read it as “I made this as an exercise” and not “I am making a full attempt to replace this other project”.

lupusreal 2y ago
That's my read too. The "Written in X" suffix to project announcements makes them sound like stunts done for attention or clout, regardless of the language used. It reads like a headline "Man travels across America, with a unicycle."

estebank 2y ago

Why is there a conflation between "modern" and "unstable", and "conventional" and "solid"? I've seen plenty of conventional things that are not solid, and plenty of modern things that were far from unstable. Or maybe I have a different threshold for what modern is. Beyond your parenthetical, what about Rust is unstable for you today? It would be interesting to me to hear that in order to see if the things that come to mind when hearing that are the same that you meant.

zifpanachr23 2y ago
First of all, there's no spec, no stable ABI, etc etc etc. And the language is constantly adding new features and complexities. In practical terms and in this case it probably doesn't matter, but that is what people are talking about when they say it's both modern and unstable. It's not entirely unreasonable. Note that "unstable" doesn't necessarily mean "broken". It just means that the ecosystem is likely to have changed massively looking back at code written today from some theoretical vantage point 5 years in the future.