Promoting Rust by attacking C or other legacy languages that do not have equivalent memory safety is simply not constructive dialogue. Whenever the subject comes up concerning C/C++, or vulnerabilities discovered in common software packages someone always shows up to gripe about lack of memory safety in other language and then regurgitate the same litany of Rust vs C/C++ talking points. It gets old and it's not helping win over the developers the Rust community needs if they actually want to re-write the millions of lines code from the many open source projects to fix these problems.
The handful of Rust bros who show up to condemn C/C++ at every opportunity just make the Rust proponents look like a bunch of elitists, which is not fair to Rust or the community.
haha yeah, there is a certain phrasing that just lights up from space... another similarity is the amount of projects written in go that just so happen to be "self contained in a single executable with no shared lib deps!!" (wonder why that is) :)
I’m a huge fan of memory safety but if you’re going to hector other people about open source projects you should either be volunteering code or sending serious money.
“You should rewrite your large C project” is not helpful unless you’re showing up to help.
“Here’s a specific bug you should fix” is different because it’s multiple orders of magnitude less work and doesn’t involve throwing out a ton of perfectly serviceable code.
Obviously actually helping right on the spot can be seen as more valuable, yes. In a perfect world.
In the world we live in, that's just not possible. Can you right every wrong you've ever witnessed?
Some of us see systemic and bigger problems and point those out. In your example it's fair to conclude "writing mission-critical code in C is an unjustified risk". Case in point, in a world where Heartbleed actually happened, that should've led to maintainers admitting that their language of choice isn't the right tool for the job.
As engineers we must be pragmatic. Yet many act like you're attacking their kids if you say "your programming language of choice is ill-suited for writing safe code".
This surprises me to this day, though I guess it really shouldn't. Like you, I imagine a perfect world.
> Some of us see systemic and bigger problems and point those out.
Consider whether this is more useful than saying “you know, you should probably find more time to go to the gym”. Anyone writing C code has heard this by now, and repetition probably isn’t going to help.
What could work is what we have seen successfully with Firefox, Linux, Chrome, Android, etc. where people didn’t demand a massive rewrite but instead showed up to work and picked something small where benefits could be seen quickly. Rust has excellent interoperability so you can do that well but you might run into challenges on projects like OpenSSH which have been ported to all kinds of obscure platforms.
(And, to be clear, I like Rust. It’s just I also understand open source maintainer burnout having had plenty of people suggest huge changes they thought were super important but still not enough that they personally wanted to help.)
I refuse to keep quiet unless I can do somebody's work for them.
Framing the whole thing like "saying C isn't cutting it anymore isn't a useful thing to say" is disingenuous.
As professionals we have to keep ourselves to higher standards. Currently I work in a company where the CTO said "screw you all" and forced a rewrite. And you know what? Recently we released the rewrite and it's going better and better each day.
These things do happen. Informed people with political capital to spend do exist.
It's a shame that the industry at large is mostly just comprised of followers.
(As for gradual rewrites, look at this thread. People are getting worked up just by saying the word "Rust". It's very sad but also kinda hilarious observing [supposed] adults act like that.)
You didn't address the argument. You latched onto an imperfect analogy (and all analogues are imperfect). That tells me everything I need to know: you got no argument. You'll still seek to discredit the other side any way you can though, apparently.
I made arguments in this thread. You ignoring them and insisting on shifting the topic is disingenuous line of arguing.
Spelling it out for you: some safety is better than none. That was the topic. And that people call "cult" whatever they don't like in a very vain attempt to discredit it.
This is why Rust is toxic. This right here. It's unfortunate that an entire language is poisoned by too much dishonest advocacy but here we are. Nobody likes this disingenuous astroturf.
You don't like how I talk -- it's your right. But to ascribe some properties on an entire language and ecosystem, now that is a disingenuous astroturf.
> Not enough libraries for what I had to do at the time. I looked at it.
have you ever considered the same is true for the hundreds of thousands of OSS projects out there that are writing their code in the language they know best and provides a wider range of opportunities?
If the advocacy for safe languages revolves only around _one_ language, it's spam.
It's the same thing of "excuse me sir do you have time to talk about our lord and savior Jesus Christ?"
There are so many imaginary godlike beings, why stop at the one?
> Also you claiming something has "become" cultism does not make it a fact.
spamming without being paid it's cultism.
It's the definition and it's not up for dispute.
> I'd equate you to the people who resisted the use of iron and concrete and claimed you can make tall buildings only out of wood. Anti-progress folks.
False premise.
I've never resisted to Rust, in fact I write Rust code when I need it.
Your argument is deeply flawed.
Because it comes from cultism, not from reasoning.
Whether somebody is spamming you, on a discussion forum that nobody holds a gun at your head to read, is very much up there in the air.
Claiming subjective feelings are facts is kindergarten stuff, I'm really interested how that's not obvious to an adult.
I write in 3 languages lately, Rust included, so stop trying to discredit what you dislike. People will keep pointing out Rust is a better fit for a number of projects and happily there's nothing you can do to stop it. Because it comes from experience and analysis, not cultism.
