My skill prevents bugs, unlike your fancy compiler, peasant.
-
I've never run into a Java evangelist. Every opinion I've ever heard about Java is something like "Yeah, this sucks". I always thought that people put up with it because it's write-once, run-anywhere, but so is, y'know, Python.
Early on, Java was advertized as the next great thing, ending headaches from system development, porting, and "promoting good programming practices through OOP".
Then people increasingly got tired of OOP and the speed penalty of both that paradigm and the JVM, not to mention more and more education institutes started to claim Java was too hard for beginners, and that Python would be better.
Now we have Rust evangelists promoting the language as the next great thing, ending headaches from memory safety issues, porting (if you target WASM and pack your app into a Chromium instance), and "promoting good programming practices through FP".
Time is truly a flat circle...
-
I think a bunch of C programmers hate rust passionately because they always looked down their noses at principled languages for being slow.
Now a principled language is beating them on both speed and safety and it's as if the jocks lost a baseball game to the nerds who studied dynamics of solids and cut a series of little slots in their bats so that every time they hit the ball it went out of the park.
So much hate for the clever win over the brute force.
Rust is a tiny bit slower in benchmarks with similar implementations, since it has a few more runtime checks, but the difference is minor.
-
The "common bugs" that the Rust compiler prevents are those a good programmer should not make in the first place. It's the bugs that even evade a seasoned programmer that poses the problems, and there, Rust won't help either.
Remember ADA? A programming language frankesteined by a committee to make programming safer? The programmers using it still produce bugs. And ADA is way more whips and chains than Rust.
I think I found your picture. Is it this one?
-
What's actually tiresome is how this keeps happening: https://paulgraham.com/avg.html
Great read
-
Oh yes, it's so very human nature. But damn.
Most coders get the message at least a bit, I think. Other engineers have a reputation for massive egotism, software engineers don't really.
Other engineers have a reputation for massive egotism, software engineers don’t really.
That's a joke right?
-
Curious what you are talking about. Multi-threaded sharing of memory for example is also easy with rust, it just doesn't let you wrote and read at the same time, and so on.
Classic example: A linked list
-
I've never run into a Java evangelist. Every opinion I've ever heard about Java is something like "Yeah, this sucks". I always thought that people put up with it because it's write-once, run-anywhere, but so is, y'know, Python.
I love Java and use it every chance I get
-
but what you’re saying sounds boggers.
Believe me, it isn't. I program about anything for forty+ years now. I probably have forgotten more programming languages than you can list, and if there are constants in programming, then a) while compilers get better at catching bugs, they never got over the basics, and b) a good programmer will alyways be better at preventing and catching bugs than a compiler.
Once you have aquired a good mindset about disciplined programming, those buglets a compiler (or even code review systems) can find usually don't happen. Be wary of those bugs that evade the seasoned programmer, though...
For the mindset, it is good to read and understand things like the MISRA standard. Stuff like that prevents bugs.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Man hackers would love you. Memory vulnerabilities are still one of if not the main cause of vulnerabilities in unsafe languages. Yes this even applies to large projects ran by experienced and skilled people like the Linux kernel. Stop thinking your the exception, because I guarantee you aren't but even if you were you can't read all of the code in the world in your lifetime. Nor can you write all the code in the world.
-
"Rust's compiler prevents common bugs" So does skill. No offense to you, but, this trope is getting so tiresome. If you like the language then go ahead and use it. What is it with the rust crowd that they have to come acrosslike people trying to convert your religion at your front door?
At my last job I worked in a code base written in C and it needed to be certified to MISRA level A, and even in a language with as many foot guns as C, it's possible to write safe code. You just need to know what you're doing. I know there are tons of Rust zealots out there claiming it'll solve every last problem, but it turns out you just need to be careful.
-
Classic example: A linked list
... are entirely possible, even if rarely the right choice.
-
... are entirely possible, even if rarely the right choice.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]With unsafe, but how can you write a double linked list in safe rust? (without indices)
-
"Rust's compiler prevents common bugs" So does skill. No offense to you, but, this trope is getting so tiresome. If you like the language then go ahead and use it. What is it with the rust crowd that they have to come acrosslike people trying to convert your religion at your front door?
I can sympathize with some people getting tired of "rewrite it in Rust", especially when it's suggested inappropriately. (Worst I saw was an issue opened on something, maybe a database, I don't remember. Someone said they were a new programmer and wanted to help and only knew a little Rust and that if the project was rewritten in Rust they could help.) But... Rust's compiler being able to do those things is actually super useful and amazing. This is like someone saying they don't need static types because they know the language good enough to not misuse the dynamic types. This is like someone saying they don't need C because they're good at assembly.
While it isn't something as simple as Rust being strictly better than C/C++, it's really silly to say that you being a good developer means you don't need guardrails. Everybody makes mistakes all the time. You're not perfect.
-
Other engineers have a reputation for massive egotism, software engineers don’t really.
That's a joke right?
wrote last edited by [email protected]Well, it's possible I'm missing something, or that there's a different reputation actually in the industry, since I'm an amateur. The first stereotypes I think of are unkempt, caffeine-dependent and socially inept.
When I've seen people asking for help online, traditional engineers seem much more likely to flex their credentials and then not actually answer. Although there's definitely software examples as well.
-
At my last job I worked in a code base written in C and it needed to be certified to MISRA level A, and even in a language with as many foot guns as C, it's possible to write safe code. You just need to know what you're doing. I know there are tons of Rust zealots out there claiming it'll solve every last problem, but it turns out you just need to be careful.
wrote last edited by [email protected]it turns out you just need to be careful
Famous last words
-
Rust is a tiny bit slower in benchmarks with similar implementations, since it has a few more runtime checks, but the difference is minor.
All depends what your trade offs are. "Milliseconds of run time versus months of debugging." I know one team that were died in the wool C programmers but their baby had one too many security issues and their CTO said they had to reimplement it all in rust. One of them resigned but the others spent ages on it. They hated the borrow checker with a passion, almost as much as they hated the CTO, but after a bit they admitted it had some benefits and in the end they have a love/hate relationship with it. They hate the process still, but they love the result. The Milliseconds vs months quote is from my friend on that team. He said one subsystem had a seriously massive speed boost because they turned off the logging they used to do to recover from some infrequent intermittent bug that simply doesn't happen any more. They're proud of what they did.
-
The "common bugs" that the Rust compiler prevents are those a good programmer should not make in the first place. It's the bugs that even evade a seasoned programmer that poses the problems, and there, Rust won't help either.
Remember ADA? A programming language frankesteined by a committee to make programming safer? The programmers using it still produce bugs. And ADA is way more whips and chains than Rust.
wrote last edited by [email protected]This is the same kind of argument that you shouldn't have to wear seat belts because just don't crash, duh.
Why do we have traffic lights?? Just don't hit each other, duh.
You shouldn't need emergency shutoffs at gas stations, don't have a fire stupid!
Hand rails on stairs? C'mon, just don't trip.
Confirmarion dialog on deleting data? Well, just don't click the wrong thing
It's beyond obtuse
And completely missed the entire problem of human error. Which is one of the only constants we can always rely upon in every situation in every industry everywhere.
Being ignorant of something this pervasive and uniform across all humanity is not an excuse.
-
All depends what your trade offs are. "Milliseconds of run time versus months of debugging." I know one team that were died in the wool C programmers but their baby had one too many security issues and their CTO said they had to reimplement it all in rust. One of them resigned but the others spent ages on it. They hated the borrow checker with a passion, almost as much as they hated the CTO, but after a bit they admitted it had some benefits and in the end they have a love/hate relationship with it. They hate the process still, but they love the result. The Milliseconds vs months quote is from my friend on that team. He said one subsystem had a seriously massive speed boost because they turned off the logging they used to do to recover from some infrequent intermittent bug that simply doesn't happen any more. They're proud of what they did.
Yes, it's true and a common trope that you can save development or rather debugging time with Rust, since it guides you in a safer direction.
-
Yes, it's true and a common trope that you can save development or rather debugging time with Rust, since it guides you in a safer direction.
For me, it's all about the maintenance now. If it encourages you to write messy code, you will come to loathe your codebase. If it gives you clean, easy to navigate code you will love it more and more.
When I was a young programmer I couldn't abide any boilerplate at all and loved clever magic that made it disappear. Now I don't mind a bit of boilerplate and hate non-obvious machinery.
When I was young I bought the promise that object oriented programming would solve the software complexity problem, but now I think that at best it's neutral and sometimes it makes it worse.
-
I'm just trying to imagine installing something like modern Microsoft Office from punch cards.
Getting the heavy bankers box from the closet. Spending a few hours feeding cards into the reader.
Going on a profanity laced tirade because some idiot put them away out of order. It wasprobablydefinitely me.I knew some people have, uh... "strange fantasies" - but installing Microsoft Office?! You really should see a psychiatrist.
...what a.godawful pervert!
-
I can sympathize with some people getting tired of "rewrite it in Rust", especially when it's suggested inappropriately. (Worst I saw was an issue opened on something, maybe a database, I don't remember. Someone said they were a new programmer and wanted to help and only knew a little Rust and that if the project was rewritten in Rust they could help.) But... Rust's compiler being able to do those things is actually super useful and amazing. This is like someone saying they don't need static types because they know the language good enough to not misuse the dynamic types. This is like someone saying they don't need C because they're good at assembly.
While it isn't something as simple as Rust being strictly better than C/C++, it's really silly to say that you being a good developer means you don't need guardrails. Everybody makes mistakes all the time. You're not perfect.
How do you have animated pfp .
