“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?

  • JackbyDev@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    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.

  • boaratio@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    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.

  • AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    The human mind has limited capacity for things to pay attention to. If your attention is occupied with tiptoeing around the loaded guns scattered all over the floor, sooner or later you’ll slip and trip over one.

    Of course, you’re a virtuoso programmer, so you can pirouette balletically around the floorguns as you deliver brilliantly efficient code. Which is great, until you have an off day, or you get bored of coding, run off to join the circus as a professional knife-juggler and your codebase is inherited by someone of more conventional aptitude.

    Programming languages offering to keep track of some of the things programmers need to be aware of has been a boon for maintainability of code and, yes, security. Like type systems: there’s a reason we no longer write assembly language, squeezing multiple things into the bits of a register, unless we’re doing party tricks like demo coding or trying to push very limited systems to their limits.

    • BatmanAoD@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      … until you have an off day, or you get bored of coding, run off to join the circus as a professional knife-juggler and your codebase is inherited by someone of more conventional aptitude.

      Sometimes you even have to deal with having mere mortals on your team!

      • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 days ago

        It is a way to go but there are still cons there. Guaranteeing memory safety isn’t free. You have to pay for it somewhere, either at compilation time, like Rust, or during runtime like in Go. Both are solid approaches but GC will cause problems in cases where the extra runtime overhead is not acceptable.

  • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    The really annoying part is all the people saying that you shouldn’t like Rust because actually it’s not magically bug free. Yeah, no shit. No one who touched Rust claims it lets you write bug free code. People like Rust because it’s modern, fast, has great tooling, great documentation and really nice features like Traits and Algebraic data types. Memory and thread safety is just a bonus.

      • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 days ago

        It’s hard to argue with that statement. Like, literally, I have no idea who rust evangelists are, where to look for them and how to find out what “most” of them think about anything.

        • banshee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 days ago

          Yep - I don’t really know who these evangelists are either. I have read about “fearless concurrency,” which seems pretty spot-on.

      • LeFantome@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        Some bugs. I have never heard anybody remotely skilled in Rust claim that it prevents bugs in general.

        Python prevents many classes of bugs too (compared to C++). And any statically typed compiler will prevent some bugs that Python allows. Not too controversial I hope. Of course, unlike Rust, Python is unsuitable for many C++ use cases for other reasons.

        I do not use Rust and my self-image is not tied to C++. So I do not have to get upset when people explain the benefits of Rust.

        Rust is not perfect. That is why I do not use it. But it is not some elaborate lie either. It was designed to do certain things, and it does.

      • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 days ago

        Any type safe language will help you prevent a wide range of bugs that non safe languages need tons of tests to detect.

  • masterspace@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    Skill issue takes are dumb as fuck. It’s just republican personal responsibility takes using different language.

    Intelligent people focus on producing systemically better outcomes.

  • Omega (she/her)@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    I mean… they do kinda have a point on the last part. I’m no programmer or coder. I can’t code for shit. I don’t know a lot about development. And even I have the feeling that Rust people, they’re kinda like NixOS people a while back, they never shut the fuck up about it. :3

    They’re definitely enthusiastic, I’ll give them that. But so many projects are sold solely on the fact that they are made with Rust, even though it means absolutely nothing to most users.

    I remember when System76 announced that they were making a new desktop environment and the only thing they basically said about it back then was that it was made with Rust and it felt like my corner of the internet lost their mind about it like they had announced the second coming of Christ or something.

  • mokus@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    “Should I use rust or c++” is the wrong question IMO. The right question is “do I want the code I run, written by thousands or millions of randos, to be written in rust or c++”.

  • hedge_lord@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    Unlike you babies I have Personal Responsibility and I write all of my code directly in assembly the way reagan intended. I don’t need guard rails and I’ve never had any issues with it because my Personal Responsibility keeps me safe

  • B-TR3E@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    The problem with these followers of rust is that they’re heathens, disbelievers and worshippers of the devil. Just like all of you heretics. There is just one programming language for the true believer and it is FORTRAN. The pure and true FORTRAN, that is, which is punched into cards of virgin paper, not the heresy created by the blasphemy of 99.

    • jubilationtcornpone@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      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 was probably definitely me.

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    I’d guess it’s Rust fan’s genuine belief that they have something revolutionary.

    “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.

    If you’re that much of a galaxybrain, you should be writing everything directly in opcodes. In reality, nobody is and we invented languages to help us perform an activity the human brain is very poorly suited to.

    This attitude also means that OP stares at their own obvious bugs on a screen all day and then decides they’re great, which is frightening level of detachment from reality to me.

    • LeFantome@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      Sadly, it is a detachment from reality that is entirely normal, even typical. In all walks of life.

      What I still find surprising, even though normal, is how technical people can push actual facts and evidence right out of their world view.

      Sure, 70% of the bugs in C++ code bases are memory rated according to multiple sources. So let me aggressively and confidently berate this idiot that says the Rust compiler is doing something useful.

      You do not have to use either language to see how idiotic this is. Even if you accept that this guy has “the skill” to make compiler help redundant, he has no point at all unless he thinks that “typical” C++ users have that same level of skill. And, provably and trivially researched—they do not. Being this wrong makes him, as self-evidenced, incompetent by definition.

      All he proves in the end is that he is angry (and I guess not a fan of Rust).

      “Angry and incompetent” is sadly a much more common trope than the ones he tires off.

      • squaresinger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 days ago

        There’s some weird effects with language-specific bug rates.

        In old Java, most uncaught exceptions are NullpointerExceptions, because most other exceptions used to be checked. Can’t not catch a checked exception.

        So they made Kotlin, where NullpointerExceptions are the only type of checked exceptions. Now there are no unhandled NPEs anymore but now you get tons of other exceptions.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 days ago

        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.

        • qaz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 days ago

          Other engineers have a reputation for massive egotism, software engineers don’t really.

          That’s a joke right?

          • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            7 days ago

            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.