Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rust is mostly safety

graydon2.dreamwidth.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 474 posts

Re: Rust is mostly safety

#461

Post by llogiq »

stcredzero wrote: post #274
rubber_duck wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But Rust can compete on so many more levels How ? There are languages with more expressive type systems high level type systems (Haskel/OCaml presumably). There are languages with much more mature libraries, ecosystems and tooling (C#/Java). There are languages with both (F#/Scala). What is it that makes Rust a good applications programming language ? You said it your self GC doesn't really matter that much in this…

This Rust fanboyism is turning in to the new node hype "use node for everything node is web scale fast because it uses an event loop io instead of thread based io" If what you are suggesting is true, isn't the biggest problem by far the fanboyism posing as knowledge? Wouldn't complaining about Rust be like living in the age of alchemy, and complaining about someone's particular potion? Isn't the epistemological squis…

No, that's cache invalidation. And naming things.

Re: Rust is mostly safety

#462

Post by jibalt »

kbenson wrote: post #443
zerofan wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I could visit a country with a completely different set of laws regarding driving [...] Arguments by metaphor aren't my thing. It's very likely I would become more proficient at Rust if I programmed in it more. It's also very likely the poster above would worry less about memory errors if s/he programmed in C or C++ more. Yes, Rust is safer in some ways, but I still can't understand where all the fear of other lang…

> It's very likely that I would become more proficient at Rust if I programmed in it more. It's also very likely that the poster above would worry less about memory errors if s/he programmed in C or C++ more. > The city I live in now has many bike paths, completely separate from major roads. Which wasn't the point of that at all. It was to point out that you assessment of how much time is wasted working around proble…

"not acting in good faith"

An accurate diagnosis, I think. You'll never get anywhere with people like that ... or where you get is not anywhere you want to be. In this case, you have someone arguing against Rust because a) his coworkers don't bother to free memory because their programs will finish soon and b) because he doesn't care whether toy programs that he writes for his home computer are subject to buffer overflow exploits.

And on top of that was missing the point of your analogies that, if not willful, was certainly convenient. To use another one: some people are like quicksand.

Re: Rust is mostly safety

#463

Post by jibalt »

zerofan wrote: post #450
kbenson wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Using a metaphor is a rhetorical trick. Rhetorical tricks can be used to deepen the conversation, or to dismiss points out of hand. The first is useful to the discussion, the second is useful for winning, but at the detriment to the discussion. > However, we both seem to understand programming languages so talking about roads obfuscates the discussion I provided a example where it may provide value even if two peop…

You seem like a forthright person, but with or without metaphors, we're still talking past each other. My point about remote exploits, airplane crashes, and cops is not about me. Yes, public facing software needs to be careful, but (fun metaphor) that's like saying prostitutes should use condoms. Web servers, browsers, firewalls, and the like are built specifically to communicate with untrusted entities. That's some…

"I didn't say anything like that."

No one said that you said anything like that. Of course you didn't. But what you said necessarily implied that.

"We're talking past each other."

No, you willfully ignored and misrepresented all his points.

"Oh, but you can't pedal it on paths I don't provide unless you disable the safety."

That's a grossly dishonest misrepresentation the situation with Rust.

Re: Rust is mostly safety

#464

Post by jibalt »

zerofan wrote: post #450
kbenson wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Using a metaphor is a rhetorical trick. Rhetorical tricks can be used to deepen the conversation, or to dismiss points out of hand. The first is useful to the discussion, the second is useful for winning, but at the detriment to the discussion. > However, we both seem to understand programming languages so talking about roads obfuscates the discussion I provided a example where it may provide value even if two peop…

You seem like a forthright person, but with or without metaphors, we're still talking past each other. My point about remote exploits, airplane crashes, and cops is not about me. Yes, public facing software needs to be careful, but (fun metaphor) that's like saying prostitutes should use condoms. Web servers, browsers, firewalls, and the like are built specifically to communicate with untrusted entities. That's some…

"I didn't say anything like that."

No one said that you said anything like that. Of course you didn't. But what you said necessarily implied that.

"We're talking past each other."

No, you willfully ignored and misrepresented all his points.

"Oh, but you can't pedal it on paths I don't provide unless you disable the safety."

That's a grossly dishonest misrepresentation the situation with Rust.

Re: Rust is mostly safety

#465

Post by jibalt »

zerofan wrote: post #357
rcthompson wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps a better analogy would be the way that much of modern medicine is enabled by access to antibiotics. Without antibiotics, the risk of post-operation death by infection would be so high as to rule out many of the procedures that we now consider safe and routine.

I would prefer a surgeon who washed his hands over one who didn't but gave me antibiotics. I've had stitches a few times, but only one real surgery. I never got antibiotics for any of those. Maybe we could skip the analogies? I don't think they help the discussion.

They help in a discussion with someone intellectually honest.

Re: Rust is mostly safety

#466

Post by jibalt »

kibwen wrote: post #298
zerofan wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you done much skydiving? I used to go three days a week, for a couple years, between 4-10 jumps a day at a place that had world class experts. My experience is that only beginning skydivers are constantly preaching safety. They go around (vocally) judging everything they see, and I think they do it because it alleviates their own fear. Instructors would teach safety, but really only to their own students. I thin…

> I think the safety aspect of Rust appeals to a lot of beginning programmers. Is that a bad thing? All programmers start as beginners, and if C is too painful to begin with then they'll learn via an easier language, and then comfortably spend their whole careers using those easier languages. If we want to expand the field of systems programmers organically, then we need to make tools that don't punish beginning prog…

"Is that a bad thing?"

Regardless, it's a complete mispresentation of Rust, which is all that zero has to offer.

Re: Rust is mostly safety

#467

Post by jibalt »

zerofan wrote: post #314
kibwen wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the safety aspect of Rust appeals to a lot of beginning programmers. Is that a bad thing? All programmers start as beginners, and if C is too painful to begin with then they'll learn via an easier language, and then comfortably spend their whole careers using those easier languages. If we want to expand the field of systems programmers organically, then we need to make tools that don't punish beginning prog…

> > I think the safety aspect of Rust appeals to a lot of beginning programmers. > Is that a bad thing? The appeal to beginners is fine, maybe even a good thing, but the condescending comments from beginners is a lot like listening to a teenager who thinks they know everything. > What makes you feel like anyone's looking down their noses at you? There're are no shortage of obnoxious comments from beginning Rust users…

"the condescending comments from beginners"

You like to make stuff up.

"If you can't see them, it might be because you're aligned with that point of view."

Or it might not. It might be that you're just being abusive and dishonest.

Re: Rust is mostly safety

#468

Post by jibalt »

kibwen wrote: post #395
zerofan wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > I think the safety aspect of Rust appeals to a lot of beginning programmers. > Is that a bad thing? The appeal to beginners is fine, maybe even a good thing, but the condescending comments from beginners is a lot like listening to a teenager who thinks they know everything. > What makes you feel like anyone's looking down their noses at you? There're are no shortage of obnoxious comments from beginning Rust users…

> There're are no shortage of obnoxious comments from beginning Rust users here and on Reddit. If you can't see them, it might be because you're aligned with that point of view. Can you give me an example of a comment in this thread that you find to be from a pretentious beginner? Alternatively, if you're calling the author of this article a beginner, I can assure you that he isn't.

The guy's a troll.

Re: Rust is mostly safety

#469

Post by jibalt »

braveo wrote: post #220
kaoD wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone watching from the sidelines... maybe it's the cynic in me, but I think you're giving too much credit to the "but I don't have safety problems" folk. Judging by how defensive they get, it's just a post-hoc rationalization to why they won't invest time learning it. That's fine but, IMHO, not a marketing problem and just good old resistance to change. There's an endless stream of excuses to choose from, no ma…

Or we were severely disappointed when we realized Rust doesn't really give you that safety.

No, that's not it.

Re: Rust is mostly safety

#470

Post by jibalt »

zerofan wrote: post #371
tomjakubowski wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I downvoted you initially, but changed to an upvote to hopefully ungrey your comment. The use of quotation marks on the Internet (especially on Internet discussion forums) has become non-standard, and I can see how it could be confusing. I think on HN that we tend to use italics or email-style > block-quoting to indicate direct quotations of posts or user comments. Quotation marks on forums like HN tend to be used ei…

Sorry, next time I'll say something like "If you're going to misrepresent his intention" so as not to confuse a quoted sentence. And I won't use the word "say", because clearly nobody says anything in a text forum. /s I find it very obnoxious when people exaggerate what someone else said so as to make it easier to contradict. I gather you don't have any problem with that? Yet you do have a problem with people calling…

He didn't misrepresent anything. You're the one doing all the misrepresenting, exaggerating, and being obnoxious.
Post reply on HN