[Info-vax] Rust as a HS language, was: Re: Quiet?

[Dan Cross]

In article <t2huv7$lpu$3 at dont-email.me>,
Simon Clubley  <clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
>On 2022-04-05, Dan Cross <cross at spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
>> In article <t2g5jj$8kb$1 at dont-email.me>,
>> Dave Froble  <davef at tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>On 4/4/2022 2:37 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> That people have old code bases that they build with old compilers or
>>>> run with old interpreters is not Python specific. Lots of companies
>>>> are buried in technical debt.
>>>
>>>Not "lots", but everyone.
>>>
>>>So often I see programmer types quite ready to change things.  Those footing the 
>>>bill may not be so eager.  In fact they are not.  For the programmers, it is job 
>>>security, it is polishing their resume.  Not good for anyone but the 
>>>programmers, and then they are not good for their employers.
>>>
>>>Off with their heads I say ...
>>
>> I strongly disagree.  Technology evolves; over time, we learn
>> about things that work well and we adopt those things, and we
>> also learn about what does NOT work well, and let those things
>> fall by the evolutionary wayside.  This is good.
>
>And in the real world, companies and organisations need to be able
>to work on the existing codebase that they have invested significant
>resources in without having to rewrite it every 2-3 years in a new
>language or language variant as fashions change.

My experience has been that in the real world, people often
understand the need for strategic investment in technology, and
in particular, understand that modernization efforts are often a
sound investment.

That doesn't mean that we don't work with existing code bases.
Indeed, I'm working on a codebase right now that's been evolving
for 50 years through at least four commercial enterprises, a
huge number of universities, and now in an open source context.
Amazingly, illumos strives for compatibility with modern C
standards.

>So, while they may be writing new stuff in a different way or with a
>different language variant, they still need to be able to change an
>existing codebase without throwing it away.

Of course.

>Are you purely a programmer writing new code (or code that you have been
>assigned to work on), or you also responsible for making management
>decisions about how to move an existing codebase forward into a new
>environment or changing it in response to new requirements ?

Are you asking me, personally?  I certainly hope you are not.
However, it is worth noting that a number of organizations know
how to evolve their codebases cleanly, over time, while
preserving their investment.  Here's a great book full of good
lessons learned over 25 years at Google:
https://abseil.io/resources/swe-book

	- Dan C.