11–20 of 182 posts
> Better performance than C That's a bold, yet generalized statement.
And, from most indications, incorrect. I think it's beat one C program on Alloth's benchmark game in processing time, but has been beat in the others. It performs on par with C++, on the other hand, for what that's worth.
The best defense is a good offense. What is scaring all of the Rust developers and users so badly that they feel the need to go on such an offensive hype campaign? It's worse than the phase Java went through when it hit its peak. I'll be honest. Until we start seeing some more balanced (frankly, I'd settle for nuanced) discussion about the compromises made to get Rust's strengths, I'm staying the hell away from it.
Look into the issues surrounding the borrow checker, that's one of Rust's main pain points. Long compilation times are another common issue.
To Rust fans, I realise both of those issues will be addressed to some degree as MIR matures, but I'm looking for flaws as things stand now.
The best defense is a good offense. What is scaring all of the Rust developers and users so badly that they feel the need to go on such an offensive hype campaign? It's worse than the phase Java went through when it hit its peak. I'll be honest. Until we start seeing some more balanced (frankly, I'd settle for nuanced) discussion about the compromises made to get Rust's strengths, I'm staying the hell away from it.
Not sure why marketing Rust implies that the community is trying to defend it. Honestly, I enjoy sharing with my experience with Rust because I personally enjoy writing in code with Rust and want to share that with others! Nobody is saying Rust is perfect or doesn't have tradeoffs.
Err, the title of this article is "Rust is Software's Salvation". The previous one was "Rust is mostly safety". No discussion of trade offs, no negatives to be found. From the original article: "[Rust is] Technology from the past come to save the future from itself"
> Not sure why marketing Rust implies that the community is trying to defend it
The original article was a call for marketing material, because they don't feel enough people are using it. Those people are, to paraphrase the sentiment from the comments in the first article, wrong for thinking they write safe C or C++ code.
I don't hate C, like some here, but I am receptive to the many objections to it: it makes a lot of sense.
But I would be a lot more receptive to this particular attack on C (which is pretty reasonable) if it wasn't so melodramatic: claiming that Rust will "save software" and that C is some kind of garbage with no advantages of any sort. Both are false (although the latter has some truth to it: C has many issues).
The truth is strongly in your favour: No need to stretch it.
The amount of hype Rust is getting is not going to end well for Rust. This reminds me of Ruby during 2007-2010 where it went from Patron Saint to Scapegoat for every startup that failed using it. Ruby survived it, and I'm sure Rust will too, but that doesn't make it obnoxious for everyone else who inevitably gets swept up in the craze and crash. Programming is hard. Programming will always be hard. Better/newer tools…
A hilariously wrong/misleading analogy in an otherwise compelling and agreeable blog post.
The best defense is a good offense. What is scaring all of the Rust developers and users so badly that they feel the need to go on such an offensive hype campaign? It's worse than the phase Java went through when it hit its peak. I'll be honest. Until we start seeing some more balanced (frankly, I'd settle for nuanced) discussion about the compromises made to get Rust's strengths, I'm staying the hell away from it.
>"Until we start seeing some more balanced (frankly, I'd settle for nuanced) discussion about the compromises made to get Rust's strengths, I'm staying the hell away from it." Look into the issues surrounding the borrow checker, that's one of Rust's main pain points. Long compilation times are another common issue. To Rust fans, I realise both of those issues will be addressed to some degree as MIR matures, but I'm l…
The best defense is a good offense. What is scaring all of the Rust developers and users so badly that they feel the need to go on such an offensive hype campaign? It's worse than the phase Java went through when it hit its peak. I'll be honest. Until we start seeing some more balanced (frankly, I'd settle for nuanced) discussion about the compromises made to get Rust's strengths, I'm staying the hell away from it.
As a person who lived through the 1990s Java hype and had a bookshelf full of the official Java books (Addison-Wesley white books)[1], the Rust evangelism is nowhere near that level.
To refresh the memory, 1990s Java evangelists predicted:
1) C/C++ would become obsolete because in the age of abundant desktop resources (cpu power and more RAM), the GC would take care of all that
2) Java's "write-once-run-anywhere" JVM would render the Windows operating system obsolete and weaken the evil Microsoft
3) Java applets so you could create rich dynamic websites in the browser
As we now know, none of that actually happened. Java is still a success but it couldn't match the breathless press it initially received.
Yes, this particular Rust blog promising "salvation" seems to defy Fred Brook's more conservative "no silver bullet".[2] But relatively speaking, Rust's enthusiastic community is fairly tame.
I expect the rebuttal "Rust is Software's Doom" soon.