4 ms·

Before we ask if almost all things old will be rewritten in Rust, we should ask if almost all things new are being written in Rust or other memory-safe language

by mmooss 11mo ago

Before we ask if almost all things old will be rewritten in Rust, we should ask if almost all things new are being written in Rust or other memory-safe languages? Obviously not. When will that happen? 15 years? Maybe it's generational: How long before developers 'born' into to memory-safe languages as serious choices will be substantially in charge of software development?

sho_hn 11mo ago
I'm a bit wary if this is hiding an agist sentiment, though. I doubt most Rust developers were 'born into' the language, but instead adopted it on top of existing experience in other languages.
- mmooss 11mo ago
  People can learn Rust at any age. The reality is that experienced people often are more hesitant to learn new things. I can think of possible reasons: Early in life, in school and early career, much of what you work on is inevitably new to you, and also authorities (professor, boss) compel you to learn whatever they choose. You become accustomed to and skilled at adapting new things. Later, when you have power to make the choice, you are less likely to make yourself change (and more likely to make the junior people change, when there's a trade-off). Power corrupts, even on that small scale. There's also a good argument for being stubborn and jaded: You have 30 years perfecting the skills, tools, efficiencies, etc. of C++. For the new project, even if C++ isn't as good a fit as Rust, are you going to be more efficient using Rust? How about in a year? Two years? ... It might not be worth learning Rust at all; ROI might be higher continuing to invest in additional elite C++ skills. Certainly that has more appeal to someone who knows C++ intimately - continue to refine this beautiful machine, or bang your head against the wall? For someone without that investment, Rust might have higher ROI; that's fine, let them learn it. We still need C++ developers. Morbid but true, to a degree: 'Progress happens one funeral at a time.'
  - sho_hn 11mo ago
    I still think you're off the mark. Again, most existing Rust developers are not "blank slate Rust developers". That they do not rush out to rewrite all of their past projects in C++ may be more about sunk costs, and wanting to solve new problems with from-scratch development.
    - mmooss 11mo ago
      That's fair; my claims are kept simplistic for purposes of space and time. However, I'm talking about new projects, not rewriting legacy code.
    - debugnik 11mo ago
      > most existing Rust developers are not "blank slate Rust developers" Not most, but the pool of software devs has been doubling every five years, and Rust matches C# on "Learning to Code" voters at Stack Overflow's last survey, which is crazy considering how many people learn C# just to use Unity. I think you underestimate how many developers are Rust blank slates. Anecdotically, I've recently come across comments from people who've taught themselves Rust but not C or C++.
      - gjajric 11mo ago
        [dead]
        debugnik 11mo ago
        Oh I agree the survey has issues, I was just thinking about how each year the stats get more questionable! I just think it shows that interest in Rust doesn't come only from people with a C++ codebase to rewrite. Half of all devs have got less than five years of experience with any toolchain at all, let alone C++, yet many want to give Rust a try. I do think there will be a generational split there. > Steve Klabnik? Thankfully no. I've actually argued with him a couple times. Usually in partial agreement, but his fans will downvote anyone who mildly disagrees with him. Also, I'm not even big on Rust: every single time I've tried to use it I instinctively reached for features that turned out to be unstable, and I don't want to deal with their churn, so I consider the language still immature.
- pjmlp 11mo ago
  Sure there are plenty of them, hence why you seem remarks like wanting to use Rust but with a GC, or assigned to Rust features that most ML derived languages have.
lmm 11mo ago
> Obviously not Is it obvious? I haven't heard of new projects in non-memory-safe languages lately, and I would think they would struggle to attract contributors.
- pjmlp 11mo ago
  Game development, graphics and VFX industry, AI tooling infrastructure, embedded development, Maker tools like Arduino and ESP32, compiler development.
- ottah 11mo ago
  https://github.com/tigerbeetle/tigerbeetle https://github.com/tigerbeetle/tigerbeetle
  - lmm 11mo ago
    Zig at least claims some level of memory safety in their marketing. How real that is I don't know.
    - vlovich123 11mo ago
      About as real as claiming that C/C++ is memory safe because of sanitizers IMHO.
      - Ygg2 11mo ago
        I mean, Zig does have non-null pointers. It prevents some UB. Just not all.
        pjmlp 11mo ago
        Which you can achieve in C and C++ with static analysis rules, breaking compilation if pointers aren't checked for nullptr/NULL before use. Zig would have been a nice proposition in the 20th century, alongside languages like Modula-2 and Object Pascal.
    - 11mo ago
buster 11mo ago
I don't know I tend to either come across new tools written in Rust, JavaScript or Python but relatively low amount of C. The times I see some "cargo install xyz" in a git repo of some new tool is definitely noticeable.

by mmooss 11mo ago

sho_hn 11mo ago

I'm a bit wary if this is hiding an agist sentiment, though. I doubt most Rust developers were 'born into' the language, but instead adopted it on top of existing experience in other languages.

mmooss 11mo ago
People can learn Rust at any age. The reality is that experienced people often are more hesitant to learn new things. I can think of possible reasons: Early in life, in school and early career, much of what you work on is inevitably new to you, and also authorities (professor, boss) compel you to learn whatever they choose. You become accustomed to and skilled at adapting new things. Later, when you have power to make the choice, you are less likely to make yourself change (and more likely to make the junior people change, when there's a trade-off). Power corrupts, even on that small scale. There's also a good argument for being stubborn and jaded: You have 30 years perfecting the skills, tools, efficiencies, etc. of C++. For the new project, even if C++ isn't as good a fit as Rust, are you going to be more efficient using Rust? How about in a year? Two years? ... It might not be worth learning Rust at all; ROI might be higher continuing to invest in additional elite C++ skills. Certainly that has more appeal to someone who knows C++ intimately - continue to refine this beautiful machine, or bang your head against the wall? For someone without that investment, Rust might have higher ROI; that's fine, let them learn it. We still need C++ developers. Morbid but true, to a degree: 'Progress happens one funeral at a time.'
- sho_hn 11mo ago
  I still think you're off the mark. Again, most existing Rust developers are not "blank slate Rust developers". That they do not rush out to rewrite all of their past projects in C++ may be more about sunk costs, and wanting to solve new problems with from-scratch development.
  - mmooss 11mo ago
    That's fair; my claims are kept simplistic for purposes of space and time. However, I'm talking about new projects, not rewriting legacy code.
  - debugnik 11mo ago
    > most existing Rust developers are not "blank slate Rust developers" Not most, but the pool of software devs has been doubling every five years, and Rust matches C# on "Learning to Code" voters at Stack Overflow's last survey, which is crazy considering how many people learn C# just to use Unity. I think you underestimate how many developers are Rust blank slates. Anecdotically, I've recently come across comments from people who've taught themselves Rust but not C or C++.
    - gjajric 11mo ago
      [dead]
      - debugnik 11mo ago
        Oh I agree the survey has issues, I was just thinking about how each year the stats get more questionable! I just think it shows that interest in Rust doesn't come only from people with a C++ codebase to rewrite. Half of all devs have got less than five years of experience with any toolchain at all, let alone C++, yet many want to give Rust a try. I do think there will be a generational split there. > Steve Klabnik? Thankfully no. I've actually argued with him a couple times. Usually in partial agreement, but his fans will downvote anyone who mildly disagrees with him. Also, I'm not even big on Rust: every single time I've tried to use it I instinctively reached for features that turned out to be unstable, and I don't want to deal with their churn, so I consider the language still immature.
pjmlp 11mo ago
Sure there are plenty of them, hence why you seem remarks like wanting to use Rust but with a GC, or assigned to Rust features that most ML derived languages have.

lmm 11mo ago

> Obviously not Is it obvious? I haven't heard of new projects in non-memory-safe languages lately, and I would think they would struggle to attract contributors.

pjmlp 11mo ago
Game development, graphics and VFX industry, AI tooling infrastructure, embedded development, Maker tools like Arduino and ESP32, compiler development.
ottah 11mo ago
https://github.com/tigerbeetle/tigerbeetle https://github.com/tigerbeetle/tigerbeetle
- lmm 11mo ago
  Zig at least claims some level of memory safety in their marketing. How real that is I don't know.
  - vlovich123 11mo ago
    About as real as claiming that C/C++ is memory safe because of sanitizers IMHO.
    - Ygg2 11mo ago
      I mean, Zig does have non-null pointers. It prevents some UB. Just not all.
      - pjmlp 11mo ago
        Which you can achieve in C and C++ with static analysis rules, breaking compilation if pointers aren't checked for nullptr/NULL before use. Zig would have been a nice proposition in the 20th century, alongside languages like Modula-2 and Object Pascal.
  - 11mo ago

buster 11mo ago

I don't know I tend to either come across new tools written in Rust, JavaScript or Python but relatively low amount of C. The times I see some "cargo install xyz" in a git repo of some new tool is definitely noticeable.