4 ms·
The video is worth a watch before responding. I'll try to summarize but it is unfair to the content. (I specifically opted for it over some others due to its br
by rc00 2y ago
The video is worth a watch before responding. I'll try to summarize but it is unfair to the content. (I specifically opted for it over some others due to its brevity.) In all, the statement from Google lacks context and due diligence.
Some bullets:
* Experience levels in C++ and Rust are not equivalent. The experience gap between C++ and Rust developers can skew results, as C++ has been around much longer, affecting developer proficiency and code complexity.
* Comparison of codebases: legacy C++ vs. greenfield Rust. Comparing a mature C++ codebase with a new Rust project is like comparing apples to oranges; age and complexity can impact productivity metrics significantly.
* Measurement metrics can be misleading. The metrics used to determine productivity often lack depth, failing to account for feature complexity or development duration.
* Organizations have asymmetric composition of resources. The management style and communication within teams can heavily influence productivity, indicating that not all teams function under the same conditions.
- Ygg2 2y agoCounter bullets: * Experience gap between C++ and Rust should give edge to C++ as it has larger pool of candidates to pick from. * Even in greenfield Rust vs greenfield C++ like Rust drivers in Android, Rust significantly reduced defect rate. * Measurements in this study were done on teams with same size, rewriting existing service. Neither you or Primagen demonstrate how that would be misleading. * See first point. While true how can you be sure C++ team isn't overall better than Rust? What if C++ is three senior engineers and Rust is three mediors? Actual possible problems: * There isn't yet enough data for language comparison. Too early to tell. * Observer effect might have influenced the study.
- steveklabnik 2y agoYes, full agree with all of this.