5 ms·

These comments are frightening since they throw away decades worth of work and stability for whatever is being advocated for right now. How do we know that we c

These comments are frightening since they throw away decades worth of work and stability for whatever is being advocated for right now. How do we know that we can trust Rust developers to actively maintain a project when they seem eager to follow whatever the most current thing is? It’s the same situation with the Asahi Linux lead dev that quit at temporary pushback. There’s no faith that they will actually be committed to it.

kouteiheika 2y ago
> when they seem eager to follow whatever the most current thing is? Rust hit 1.0 *10 years ago*. How many more years will it take for people to stop constantly insinuating that people only use it because of the hype, and not simply because it's a vastly better language than C?
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
  Partly because some of its advocates say things like: > it's a vastly better language than C when they could just say "it has some important features that C does not have and likely will never have".
  - kouteiheika 2y ago
    I don't follow. So you think it cannot be possibly a vastly better language than C, and the only reason people are saying that is because of the hype?
    - dmitrygr 2y ago
      "Better" implies an unambiguous "goodness" metric, which does not exist. People who still use such language are thus implying that their opinion and their definition of "good" is the only correct one.
- knowknow 2y ago
  My problem has nothing to do with the language, I think it’s wonderful. But people who are Rust evangelists push the language everywhere, regardless of it’s appropriate or if the maintainers actually want to use it. So yes, most people who advocate it for everything are mainly doing it due to hype rather than its benefits. Especially when people act as if it’s a morally wrong not to use Rust. 10 years isn’t long at all for a language.
  - nindalf 2y ago
    I’ve seen this sentiment be expressed often but I don’t see any merit behind the argument. It boils down “this language may have merit but I don’t like the way people advocate for it”. That’s just tone policing. And the thing about tone police is that the standard they set is vague/nebulous and therefore impossible to satisfy. You have some “right way to advocate” in mind. Other tone police have some other “right way”. But advocates aren’t mind readers, nor can they satisfy all your demands simultaneously. > push the language everywhere, regardless of it’s appropriate Where is the language inappropriate? Notice you don’t say, so while it sounds like you’re making a technical argument it sounds like a pensioner whining about kids on his lawn. That’s all this really boils down to. The whiners don’t have any technical arguments, they’re just old conservatives who like the way things have always been and want to keep it that way. In place of technical arguments they say silly things like “of the millions of rust developers out there, I didn’t like a few comments made by some of them”. Cool.
    - knowknow 2y ago
      The fact that you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being “old conservatives” makes it obvious that you come from a place of so much bad faith that I want nothing to do with you or give any credence to any argument you have. This is a prime example of how rust evangelist treat not using Rust as a moral wrong and why Rust developers are insufferable. I rather write in a supposedly suboptimal language than dealing with those like you.
      - nindalf 2y ago
- dmitrygr 2y ago
  Honest answer: when the first adherents of it are fully retired, so we can truly see if it has staying power with the next generation of engineers. C has passed this test.
- desumeku 2y ago
  Rust is supposedly post-1.0 but it still doesn't have a standard that isn't just documenting the output of the compiler.

kouteiheika 2y ago

> when they seem eager to follow whatever the most current thing is? Rust hit 1.0 *10 years ago*. How many more years will it take for people to stop constantly insinuating that people only use it because of the hype, and not simply because it's a vastly better language than C?

PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
Partly because some of its advocates say things like: > it's a vastly better language than C when they could just say "it has some important features that C does not have and likely will never have".
- kouteiheika 2y ago
  I don't follow. So you think it cannot be possibly a vastly better language than C, and the only reason people are saying that is because of the hype?
  - dmitrygr 2y ago
    "Better" implies an unambiguous "goodness" metric, which does not exist. People who still use such language are thus implying that their opinion and their definition of "good" is the only correct one.
knowknow 2y ago
My problem has nothing to do with the language, I think it’s wonderful. But people who are Rust evangelists push the language everywhere, regardless of it’s appropriate or if the maintainers actually want to use it. So yes, most people who advocate it for everything are mainly doing it due to hype rather than its benefits. Especially when people act as if it’s a morally wrong not to use Rust. 10 years isn’t long at all for a language.
- nindalf 2y ago
  I’ve seen this sentiment be expressed often but I don’t see any merit behind the argument. It boils down “this language may have merit but I don’t like the way people advocate for it”. That’s just tone policing. And the thing about tone police is that the standard they set is vague/nebulous and therefore impossible to satisfy. You have some “right way to advocate” in mind. Other tone police have some other “right way”. But advocates aren’t mind readers, nor can they satisfy all your demands simultaneously. > push the language everywhere, regardless of it’s appropriate Where is the language inappropriate? Notice you don’t say, so while it sounds like you’re making a technical argument it sounds like a pensioner whining about kids on his lawn. That’s all this really boils down to. The whiners don’t have any technical arguments, they’re just old conservatives who like the way things have always been and want to keep it that way. In place of technical arguments they say silly things like “of the millions of rust developers out there, I didn’t like a few comments made by some of them”. Cool.
  - knowknow 2y ago
    The fact that you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being “old conservatives” makes it obvious that you come from a place of so much bad faith that I want nothing to do with you or give any credence to any argument you have. This is a prime example of how rust evangelist treat not using Rust as a moral wrong and why Rust developers are insufferable. I rather write in a supposedly suboptimal language than dealing with those like you.
    - nindalf 2y ago
dmitrygr 2y ago
Honest answer: when the first adherents of it are fully retired, so we can truly see if it has staying power with the next generation of engineers. C has passed this test.
desumeku 2y ago
Rust is supposedly post-1.0 but it still doesn't have a standard that isn't just documenting the output of the compiler.