5 ms·

No, that's my point; there are thousands of very experienced and dedicated coders out there who are not sick of it; because we've been around long enough to not

by sifoo 9y ago

No, that's my point; there are thousands of very experienced and dedicated coders out there who are not sick of it; because we've been around long enough to not blame our tools, and we have enough experience to appreciate its unique strengths. I'm all for simpler and more intuitive, but Rust is the opposite of that; it's rigid and complex if anything. Why does everything have to be a competition? Why can't several technologies be allowed to coexist? This is not about having your opinions challenged, you need to work on your reading comprehension; this is about not attacking others for expressing different preferences from your own.

master-litty 9y ago
I would alternatively suggest you improve your conveyance of thoughts. It's clear now you have a rationalized and objective view of the situation, but it took us three or four replies to understand your underlying reasoning. When you start a comment chain by needlessly bashing the users of technology X, and don't really support your opinion of them with anything factual, what are you hoping we read there? It feels like you want us to read between the lines and assume you have a better reason to bash them; That's mindreading, and unfortunately something none of us can do. I think many Rust advocates, myself included, tend to foresee an eventual obsoletion of C because of theoretical overlapping purpose. We see Rust providing certain development luxuries without the usual heavy performance decrease accompanying them. While we can't say for sure, we think a majority of people will prefer having those luxuries in the future. The most compelling thought for me is: In a world where Rust had more complete libraries, and most developers knew Rust instead of C, is there an incentive to learn and use C for new projects? It's a complete matter of opinion but I think it's the reason most rustaceans "hound" on C devs. I don't think there would be such an incentive. I find them equally complex in their own ways, but also find more benefits with Rust versus C.

by sifoo 9y ago

master-litty 9y ago

I would alternatively suggest you improve your conveyance of thoughts. It's clear now you have a rationalized and objective view of the situation, but it took us three or four replies to understand your underlying reasoning. When you start a comment chain by needlessly bashing the users of technology X, and don't really support your opinion of them with anything factual, what are you hoping we read there? It feels like you want us to read between the lines and assume you have a better reason to bash them; That's mindreading, and unfortunately something none of us can do. I think many Rust advocates, myself included, tend to foresee an eventual obsoletion of C because of theoretical overlapping purpose. We see Rust providing certain development luxuries without the usual heavy performance decrease accompanying them. While we can't say for sure, we think a majority of people will prefer having those luxuries in the future. The most compelling thought for me is: In a world where Rust had more complete libraries, and most developers knew Rust instead of C, is there an incentive to learn and use C for new projects? It's a complete matter of opinion but I think it's the reason most rustaceans "hound" on C devs. I don't think there would be such an incentive. I find them equally complex in their own ways, but also find more benefits with Rust versus C.