That's a forest for the trees argument.
That's a forest for the trees argument. The ability to introduce bugs ("make a tiny mistake") in future changes is an inherent property of software , and you can't fix this in the general case. Rust just fixes this for the case of free-memory-read bugs. That has value, but it's a much more limited scope than you're implying. Really I think this is the biggest problem with Rust. The stuff broken about C++ isn't really its memory model, it's simply its complexity. And every time I look at what's happening in Rust I see the same kind of complexity being introduced at every turn . I mean seriously: "named lifetime parameters"? And the syntax is a bare single quote? That's a joke, right? No one but Rust nerds is going to grok this, and real code needs to me maintained by mediocrities. Frankly Go seems to have this "don't introduce new nonsense" problem under much better control, so if I need to pick a horse in the race, it's that one, not Rust.
Posted by ajross on Sep 21, 2014, 3:31 AM
Tags
Related issues
- You obviously did this for fun, I don’t want to throw any shade on it and have no criticism, I also make fun things just because.¹ So ta...
- Many devs love to shit on the guy from the 'I just want the exe.
- Now imagine how poor people stress if their smartphone bricks or gets damaged or lost.
- Resuming an extended-thinking session fails permanently with 400 "thinking blocks cannot be modified" (transcript stores thinking text as empty but keeps signat
- I'll preface this with a statement that as a European I want European alternatives to succeed, and MS-owned GitHub to shrivel and disappear.
- Yeah, but there’s a world of difference between “not perfect” and “we rounded a few sliders, and now the modal is a nightmare to use”.
Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.9,000 issues0 comments
reliability (SaaS)
You obviously did this for fun, I don’t want to throw any shade on it and have no criticism, I also make fun things just because.¹ So ta...
Many devs love to shit on the guy from the 'I just want the exe.
Now imagine how poor people stress if their smartphone bricks or gets damaged or lost.
Resuming an extended-thinking session fails permanently with 400 "thinking blocks cannot be modified" (transcript stores thinking text as empty but keeps signat
I'll preface this with a statement that as a European I want European alternatives to succeed, and MS-owned GitHub to shrivel and disappear.
Yeah, but there’s a world of difference between “not perfect” and “we rounded a few sliders, and now the modal is a nightmare to use”.
I used to write a lot of native Windows corporate software in the 90's and 2000's and my standard login window was a floating draggable o...
App broken with Mosquitto broker 7.0.0
That's a forest for the trees argument.
That's a forest for the trees argument. The ability to introduce bugs ("make a tiny mistake") in future changes is an inherent property of software , and you can't fix this in the general case. Rust just fixes this for the case of free-memory-read bugs. That has value, but it's a much more limited scope than you're implying. Really I think this is the biggest problem with Rust. The stuff broken about C++ isn't really its memory model, it's simply its complexity. And every time I look at what's happening in Rust I see the same kind of complexity being introduced at every turn . I mean seriously: "named lifetime parameters"? And the syntax is a bare single quote? That's a joke, right? No one but Rust nerds is going to grok this, and real code needs to me maintained by mediocrities. Frankly Go seems to have this "don't introduce new nonsense" problem under much better control, so if I need to pick a horse in the race, it's that one, not Rust.
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Start the discussion.