despite developers' positive feelings toward Rust, 97% of them hadn't actually used it.
Who says they love something they have not used???
I might say something seems decent, but no way would I say I *LOVE* a language until I've done a few real things in it.
The top issues that respondents say the Rust project could do to improve adoption of the language are better training and documentation, followed by better libraries, IDE integration, and improved compile times...
despite developers' positive feelings toward Rust, 97% of them hadn't actually used it.
Who says they love something they have not used???
Somehow this reminds me of Ruby back in the day. Only back then, it was developers who only learned it the prior week being overly enthusiastic about it.
But yeah, Rust seems to have a huge cheerleader squad on various tech sites, that's definitely out of proportion with people who actually use it. Most of the actual Rust-based projects I've run across so far, tend to be novel (and not drop-in) replacements for various command line utilities. I almost never actually use these after installing them, because o
I think in some ways, it's perhaps because people love the idea of Rust as much or more than the language itself. The concept is pretty compelling, really - a compiler/language that actively presents you from shooting yourself in the foot, which C++ allows you to do if you step outside of "voluntary best practices", and which C seems to gleefully encourage with the slightest misstep. And all this while still achieving the fantastic run-time efficiency of a natively compiled language. What's not to love?
Indeed. Also, you can shoot yourself in the foot with Rust just as easily, it will just be harder to find the problem later on. The whole approach they selected to market this thing seems a recipe for failure though. If you water down engineering discussions with SJW-nonsense, they are not engineering discussions anymore. Also, basically most good engineers will stay far away from such a community.
Indeed. Also, you can shoot yourself in the foot with Rust just as easily, it will just be harder to find the problem later on.
That's incorrect.
My team (20 developers) have been rewriting our team's project in Rust for the past year. Rust doesn't let you shoot yourself in the foot easily. You have to explicitly mark as "unsafe" the places that might shoot you in the foot, and there are generally few of these, and they all get very stringent code-reviews by the senior developers. The normal pattern is that the senior developer encapsulates the unsafe behavior behind a safe API, and they write down the internal invariants which prove that no foot-shootage will happen within the API, but the users of the API don't use the "unsafe" keyword and aren't able to shoot anyone's feet.
So by the time the rewrite has been completed, 40,000 newer languages will have been released and ignored. Wonderful. Sounds like self-inflicted damage to me.
It must be very profitable if you can spend 20 person years re-writing it in another language. Amazing you don't need to spend time on maintenance (bug fixes) or new features.
Indeed. Also, you can shoot yourself in the foot with Rust just as easily, it will just be harder to find the problem later on.
That's incorrect.
Nope. And you do not even understand what I am talking about. That is a pretty big fail. It nicely illustrates the general incompetence level of "developers" these days though.
There was nothing obvious about your claim that "you can shoot yourself in the foot with Rust just as easily", when Rust was engineered specifically to keep the developer from making these kinds of mistakes.
Nope. And you do not even understand what I am talking about.
I'd love to have you explain what you meant!
You wrote: "you can shoot yourself in the foot with Rust just as easily, it will just be harder to find the problem later on."
My answer was that the foot-shooting from a soundness perspective is limited to unsafe blocks. This (1) makes it easier to find problems up-front, (2) makes it easier to find the problem later on.
If your point was that that foot-shooting isn't related to soundness? I certainly agree with you in languages like Java and C# and Haskell. I stre
What you overlook is that memory safety issues are by far not the only source of vulnerabilities. They are easy to find, which means attackers go for them first and competent developers do not actually have the problem because they can find them easily too. Because of a large number of incompetent developers, they are the ones mostly counted. But look, for example, to the OWASP Top-10 and you find the first memory safety issue in place 9. The same is true for any other thing Rust claims to do. There are sti
Wait a second... (Score:5, Insightful)
despite developers' positive feelings toward Rust, 97% of them hadn't actually used it.
Who says they love something they have not used???
I might say something seems decent, but no way would I say I *LOVE* a language until I've done a few real things in it.
The top issues that respondents say the Rust project could do to improve adoption of the language are better training and documentation, followed by better libraries, IDE integration, and improved compile times...
That is a pretty tall list of things that
Re: (Score:2)
despite developers' positive feelings toward Rust, 97% of them hadn't actually used it.
Who says they love something they have not used???
Somehow this reminds me of Ruby back in the day. Only back then, it was developers who only learned it the prior week being overly enthusiastic about it.
But yeah, Rust seems to have a huge cheerleader squad on various tech sites, that's definitely out of proportion with people who actually use it. Most of the actual Rust-based projects I've run across so far, tend to be novel (and not drop-in) replacements for various command line utilities. I almost never actually use these after installing them, because o
Re: (Score:5, Informative)
I think in some ways, it's perhaps because people love the idea of Rust as much or more than the language itself. The concept is pretty compelling, really - a compiler/language that actively presents you from shooting yourself in the foot, which C++ allows you to do if you step outside of "voluntary best practices", and which C seems to gleefully encourage with the slightest misstep. And all this while still achieving the fantastic run-time efficiency of a natively compiled language. What's not to love?
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. Also, you can shoot yourself in the foot with Rust just as easily, it will just be harder to find the problem later on. The whole approach they selected to market this thing seems a recipe for failure though. If you water down engineering discussions with SJW-nonsense, they are not engineering discussions anymore. Also, basically most good engineers will stay far away from such a community.
Re:Wait a second... (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed. Also, you can shoot yourself in the foot with Rust just as easily, it will just be harder to find the problem later on.
That's incorrect.
My team (20 developers) have been rewriting our team's project in Rust for the past year. Rust doesn't let you shoot yourself in the foot easily. You have to explicitly mark as "unsafe" the places that might shoot you in the foot, and there are generally few of these, and they all get very stringent code-reviews by the senior developers. The normal pattern is that the senior developer encapsulates the unsafe behavior behind a safe API, and they write down the internal invariants which prove that no foot-shootage will happen within the API, but the users of the API don't use the "unsafe" keyword and aren't able to shoot anyone's feet.
Re: (Score:0)
Re: Wait a second... (Score:2)
It must be very profitable if you can spend 20 person years re-writing it in another language. Amazing you don't need to spend time on maintenance (bug fixes) or new features.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Also, you can shoot yourself in the foot with Rust just as easily, it will just be harder to find the problem later on.
That's incorrect.
Nope. And you do not even understand what I am talking about. That is a pretty big fail. It nicely illustrates the general incompetence level of "developers" these days though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When somebody overlooks obvious things, it is a pretty valid argument and a nice indicator for incompetence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There was nothing obvious about your claim that "you can shoot yourself in the foot with Rust just as easily",
You think so? Then you have no place in this discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. And you do not even understand what I am talking about.
I'd love to have you explain what you meant!
You wrote: "you can shoot yourself in the foot with Rust just as easily, it will just be harder to find the problem later on."
My answer was that the foot-shooting from a soundness perspective is limited to unsafe blocks. This (1) makes it easier to find problems up-front, (2) makes it easier to find the problem later on.
If your point was that that foot-shooting isn't related to soundness? I certainly agree with you in languages like Java and C# and Haskell. I stre
Re: (Score:3)
What you overlook is that memory safety issues are by far not the only source of vulnerabilities. They are easy to find, which means attackers go for them first and competent developers do not actually have the problem because they can find them easily too. Because of a large number of incompetent developers, they are the ones mostly counted. But look, for example, to the OWASP Top-10 and you find the first memory safety issue in place 9. The same is true for any other thing Rust claims to do. There are sti
Re: (Score:1)
You sure showed that straw man.