> So, in the same vein, Rust has failed because it has only been around for a similar amount of time and people still use C/C++?
Yes, it kind of failed there indeed. And I even hinted at why: Rust is far from perfect and its async implementation is a cobbled together mess. Golang's model reads much better, though I hate their foot-guns quite a lot (like writing to a closed channel leads to a panic; who thought that was a good idea?).
> I fail to see how a CVE that occurred due to poor engineering practices has anything to do with the adoption of good engineering practices and tooling. Yes, Heartbleed is why we need this tooling.
You can't see it? But... the good practices do lead to less of these CVEs as you yourself seem to realize? I don't get this part of your comment.
> You are simultaneously arguing that if we could just adopt Rust, our problems would be solved, but since another technology has not yet been adopted, it has failed.
You have answered it yourself: a lot of people see manual wrangling of `void**` as a badge of honor and their ego takes over (and the fear of being displaced, of course). I claim that Rust is not being more widely adopted due to programmer ego and fear of being obsolete. The fear of the end of nice salaries because they belong to a diminishing cohort of old-school cowboys.
Who would not fear that? Who would want that to end?
> Do you not see the logical inconsistency in your position?
No, and I don't get your argument. The reasons for C/C++ devs not improving the memory safety of their code, and the reasons for them not adopting Rust are very different. Not only is the analogy bad, it is plain inapplicable.
---
But it also does not help that HN reacts like a virgin schoolgirl pinched on the arse when Rust is mentioned. I've coded it for a few years, I loved it, I hated the bad parts and called them out, but even to this day I very quickly and easily get branded as a Rust fanboy even if my comment history shows balanced criticisms towards it. People don't care. People are emotional and are quick to put you in a camp that's easy to hate.
That is the part that I truly hate. No objective debate.
Too expensive to move to Rust? GOOD! That's an amazing argument, we can talk that for weeks and get very interesting insights in both directions.
People unwilling to get re-trained? Also a good argument, with big potential for interesting insights!
But most of everything else is at the level of a heated table debate after the 11th beer. Pretty meh and very uninteresting. No idea why I keep engaging, I think I am just bitter that people who REALLY should know better are reacting on emotion and not on merit. But that's on me. We all have our intolerances to the reality we inhabit. This is one of mine.
Yes, it kind of failed there indeed. And I even hinted at why: Rust is far from perfect and its async implementation is a cobbled together mess. Golang's model reads much better, though I hate their foot-guns quite a lot (like writing to a closed channel leads to a panic; who thought that was a good idea?).
> I fail to see how a CVE that occurred due to poor engineering practices has anything to do with the adoption of good engineering practices and tooling. Yes, Heartbleed is why we need this tooling.
You can't see it? But... the good practices do lead to less of these CVEs as you yourself seem to realize? I don't get this part of your comment.
> You are simultaneously arguing that if we could just adopt Rust, our problems would be solved, but since another technology has not yet been adopted, it has failed.
You have answered it yourself: a lot of people see manual wrangling of `void**` as a badge of honor and their ego takes over (and the fear of being displaced, of course). I claim that Rust is not being more widely adopted due to programmer ego and fear of being obsolete. The fear of the end of nice salaries because they belong to a diminishing cohort of old-school cowboys.
Who would not fear that? Who would want that to end?
> Do you not see the logical inconsistency in your position?
No, and I don't get your argument. The reasons for C/C++ devs not improving the memory safety of their code, and the reasons for them not adopting Rust are very different. Not only is the analogy bad, it is plain inapplicable.
---
But it also does not help that HN reacts like a virgin schoolgirl pinched on the arse when Rust is mentioned. I've coded it for a few years, I loved it, I hated the bad parts and called them out, but even to this day I very quickly and easily get branded as a Rust fanboy even if my comment history shows balanced criticisms towards it. People don't care. People are emotional and are quick to put you in a camp that's easy to hate.
That is the part that I truly hate. No objective debate.
Too expensive to move to Rust? GOOD! That's an amazing argument, we can talk that for weeks and get very interesting insights in both directions.
People unwilling to get re-trained? Also a good argument, with big potential for interesting insights!
But most of everything else is at the level of a heated table debate after the 11th beer. Pretty meh and very uninteresting. No idea why I keep engaging, I think I am just bitter that people who REALLY should know better are reacting on emotion and not on merit. But that's on me. We all have our intolerances to the reality we inhabit. This is one of mine.