Noticed an overall “vibe” where Rust critics repeatedly have points that sound like they make sense, and I can’t really think of examples of them saying confusing nonsense, or refusing to elaborate on a point when challenged to. Whereas, other way around for Rust defenders.
Best way I know to determine what’s “sus” is to look at what’s defended by people who are willing to elaborate on the points you ask them to elaborate on. It’s almost a perfect gauge. But maybe not quite perfect, and you could totally call it “vibes.” I remain not totally certain about Rust.
It’s very hard to get a good look at which arguments are good or not without having the experience to evaluate them.
Here’s my view on Rust vs C or C++. Rust is a stricter language which makes it easier to code with low run-time errors, which is great for writing large scale projects. Now the problem with this is that you can write C++ to also be strict but it’s a lot more verbose than the standard approach, so most developers don’t. This causes disagreement among Rustaceans and C/C++'ers. The C++'ers are correct that you can replicate anything in Rust in C++. A correct program is a correct program regardless of the language it’s written in. Rustaceans also oversell when it comes to program correctness, tons of Rust programs have errors; Rust can help minimize errors but it’s not a silver bullet. Rewriting-in-Rust for an already good program is a fools errand; the outcome will probably be a worse program. However Rustaceans are correct in pointing out that the C++ written programs tend to have more errors, it’s just not the rule they pretend it is.
In summary, Rust is a great language but Rustaceans oversell it. Many of it’s apparent advantages can be mitigated by good development practice. It’s just that good practices are difficult and uncommon.
(Note that there are also 3-rd party tools like static analysers, which can help developers detect errors. So again Rust is better out of the box, but ultimately you can get the same outcome with some work).
If you are not a programmer, you do not have the background or understanding to assess any arguments about a programing language.
The vast majority of anti-Rust people are stubborn and toxic types who don’t know it and refuse to learn. On the other end you have those who do use it, know why it’s such a good language, and criticize it constructively so that it continues to improve. Rust lacks many quality of life features that other languages have, but that is by design. It’s meant to create rock-solid software and forces you to think about things like lifetimes and ownership scopes that other languages let you take for granted.
You can’t easily move from languages like C++ or Python to Rust without learning and accepting new concepts and patterns. If someone can’t or won’t do that, they should not be doing any programming.
Rust seems sus to you? What’s that based on, “vibes, bro”?
Essentially, yeah.
Noticed an overall “vibe” where Rust critics repeatedly have points that sound like they make sense, and I can’t really think of examples of them saying confusing nonsense, or refusing to elaborate on a point when challenged to. Whereas, other way around for Rust defenders.
Best way I know to determine what’s “sus” is to look at what’s defended by people who are willing to elaborate on the points you ask them to elaborate on. It’s almost a perfect gauge. But maybe not quite perfect, and you could totally call it “vibes.” I remain not totally certain about Rust.
It’s very hard to get a good look at which arguments are good or not without having the experience to evaluate them.
Here’s my view on Rust vs C or C++. Rust is a stricter language which makes it easier to code with low run-time errors, which is great for writing large scale projects. Now the problem with this is that you can write C++ to also be strict but it’s a lot more verbose than the standard approach, so most developers don’t. This causes disagreement among Rustaceans and C/C++'ers. The C++'ers are correct that you can replicate anything in Rust in C++. A correct program is a correct program regardless of the language it’s written in. Rustaceans also oversell when it comes to program correctness, tons of Rust programs have errors; Rust can help minimize errors but it’s not a silver bullet. Rewriting-in-Rust for an already good program is a fools errand; the outcome will probably be a worse program. However Rustaceans are correct in pointing out that the C++ written programs tend to have more errors, it’s just not the rule they pretend it is.
In summary, Rust is a great language but Rustaceans oversell it. Many of it’s apparent advantages can be mitigated by good development practice. It’s just that good practices are difficult and uncommon.
(Note that there are also 3-rd party tools like static analysers, which can help developers detect errors. So again Rust is better out of the box, but ultimately you can get the same outcome with some work).
That all lines up with what I’ve heard. Thanks for the comprehensive reply 🤙
If you are not a programmer, you do not have the background or understanding to assess any arguments about a programing language.
The vast majority of anti-Rust people are stubborn and toxic types who don’t know it and refuse to learn. On the other end you have those who do use it, know why it’s such a good language, and criticize it constructively so that it continues to improve. Rust lacks many quality of life features that other languages have, but that is by design. It’s meant to create rock-solid software and forces you to think about things like lifetimes and ownership scopes that other languages let you take for granted.
You can’t easily move from languages like C++ or Python to Rust without learning and accepting new concepts and patterns. If someone can’t or won’t do that, they should not be doing any programming.