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

[Dan Cross]

In article <t2ndd8$10m$1 at dont-email.me>,
Dave Froble  <davef at tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>On 4/7/2022 2:59 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>> I think it's odd that people reject better tooling while they
>> assert that programmers should "make the effort to learn their
>> craft."  Why are these things perceived as mutually exclusive?
>> Indeed, why isn't part of learning the "craft" adopting better
>> tooling?  And who suggested accepting substandard results?
>>
>> On the other hand, those who stick their collective heads in the
>> sand and pretend that the same old techniques using the same old
>> tools in the same old way should consider leaving the business.
>
>Perhaps it could be the language itself that is a problem.
>
>I've looked at a few examples.  The syntax is worse than C, which itself really 
>sucks.

That's subjective.

>My choice when seeing good new techniques would be to incorporate them into my 
>current language of choice, which I'm familiar with, not to abandon what I'm 
>familiar with and works well.

Indeed.  Learning Rust made me a better C programmer.  For that
matter, it made me a better assembly language programmer.

But the critical part of what you wrote above is that you're
asserting that what you use _works well_.  If it works well,
then that's great.  No one is suggesting abandoning what works
_well_.  But as the industry evolves, we sometimes find that
what _worked_ well 10, 15 or 20 years ago doesn't work as well
now, or that other tools _work better_.

	- Dan C.