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

[Dan Cross]

In article <t2qm09$121c$1 at gioia.aioe.org>,
chris  <chris-nospam at tridac.net> wrote:
>On 04/08/22 13:26, Dan Cross wrote:
> [snip]
>>>> So yeah, keep what works (let's be honest: mostly techniques),
>>>> but if you're not also keeping up with the changes in technology
>>>> you're going to be left behind in an asymptotically shrinking
>>>> pool of legacy technology.
>
>Now we have it: Perhaps you are pre conditioned by the idea
>that  vms is a dinosaur that has no place in "modern
>computing" ?. Far from it, may have had a difficult time with
>HP, but a robust os still in wide use and under active
>development.

No, now we have you putting words in my mouth.  I like VMS.  I
still run VMS on Alpha at home.  We're talking about languages
here.

>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> There you are again, another dig at others suggest insecurity, but
>>> I digress. Fortunately, people like you don't get to decide who
>>> works in the business and who doesn't. That's decided by project
>>> managers and engineers who look for the right kind of experience
>>> and attitude for the work they are trying to get done...
>>
>> You seem to be taking what I say rather personally.  Perhaps
>> don't?
>
>Well, "better" is subjective. If you have a system that
>produces results, why does it need to be fixed ?.  Use a wide
>variety of tools for clients, various ide's scripting and more,
>but still wedded to an ancient editor and makefile environment
>for my own work.
>
>You seem to be suggesting that those who value proven but
>not leading edge development methods are somehow deficient. If so,
>expect a response.Rants about Head in sand attitudes don't
>help either.

Reevaluating technical decisions in the light of changing
context is almost never a wasted exercise.  Hardware changes
over time, the scope and complexity of problems changes, some
things that were critical become irrelevant and some that
irrelevant become critical.

I've seen some pretty profound changes over the last 30 years,
even in the "process": things like automated testing frameworks
were considered weird back then, now they're assumed.

>If you want to be an evangelist for rust, good for you, but
>sorry, just suspicious of salesman of any kind, however good
>the product. Far from mainstream and proven so far, even
>though it's been around for (what did you say ?) 10+ years,
>suggests it's not a great hit anywhere.

I have no desire to be an "evangelist" for any technology; one
of the things I've learned is that that's not useful.  I use
Rust because I think it sits at a local maximum for the sorts of
work that I do; if something better comes along, I'll look into
that.

But, when a bunch of the grousing from those who don't actually
know much about the langauge is just wrong, it seems prudent to
correct the technical record.

>> On the other hand, you write the following about those of us who
>> choose to use safer tools:
>>
>>   "This sounds like medication to cure everyone from their sloppy
>>    programming. The infantilisation of complex subjects, just to give the
>>    lazy an easier time, while still getting the product built."
>
>Some sections of society these days seem to think rewarding failure
>a good idea, but not everyone would agree. Good programming is not
>about language or tools, but an attitude of mind, like all professional
>work. That's what I was trying to get across...

Learning how to fail gracefully is a useful thing in general in
life.

Your attitude appears to be predicated on some notion of
"freedom" given to you by your tools.  As others have pointed
out, arguing for the "freedom" to write bad code is not very
professional.

	- Dan C.


	- Dan C.