despite developers' positive feelings toward Rust, 97% of them hadn't actually used it.
Who says they love something they have not used???
I might say something seems decent, but no way would I say I *LOVE* a language until I've done a few real things in it.
The top issues that respondents say the Rust project could do to improve adoption of the language are better training and documentation, followed by better libraries, IDE integration, and improved compile times...
despite developers' positive feelings toward Rust, 97% of them hadn't actually used it.
Who says they love something they have not used???
Somehow this reminds me of Ruby back in the day. Only back then, it was developers who only learned it the prior week being overly enthusiastic about it.
But yeah, Rust seems to have a huge cheerleader squad on various tech sites, that's definitely out of proportion with people who actually use it. Most of the actual Rust-based projects I've run across so far, tend to be novel (and not drop-in) replacements for various command line utilities. I almost never actually use these after installing them, because o
I think in some ways, it's perhaps because people love the idea of Rust as much or more than the language itself. The concept is pretty compelling, really - a compiler/language that actively presents you from shooting yourself in the foot, which C++ allows you to do if you step outside of "voluntary best practices", and which C seems to gleefully encourage with the slightest misstep. And all this while still achieving the fantastic run-time efficiency of a natively compiled language. What's not to love?
Indeed. Also, you can shoot yourself in the foot with Rust just as easily, it will just be harder to find the problem later on. The whole approach they selected to market this thing seems a recipe for failure though. If you water down engineering discussions with SJW-nonsense, they are not engineering discussions anymore. Also, basically most good engineers will stay far away from such a community.
70% of all bugs, or just 70% of Microsoft's bugs? Note that Microsoft seems to have lost a lot of it's technical peak, which was never that high a peak to start with. If you look at their products as an example it's clear they're not focusing on efficiency or spending time to plan out APIs for the long term.
I am too lazy to look up which fallacy you just used, but your comment is also pretty stupid. A general understanding what Rust is programming language is quite enough for that statement. You can easily shoot yourself in the foot in _all_ currently known programming paradigms, except ones where you cannot solve real problems and even there it is sometimes possible.
I am too lazy to look up which fallacy you just used
It doesn't matter. Naming "fallacies" is a pointless waste of time. It adds nothing to the discussion and there's an excellent chance that neither party actually understands the "fallacy" in question.
I blame the recent flood of so-called "informal fallacies" coupled with autodidact programmers who don't have a formal background in logic believing themselves to be competent logicians because they once heard about DeMorgan's laws.
You can easily shoot yourself in the foot in _all_ currently known programming paradigms
I don't buy it. Some languages make it significantly harder to do stupid thi
It doesn't matter. Naming "fallacies" is a pointless waste of time. It adds nothing to the discussion and there's an excellent chance that neither party actually understands the "fallacy" in question.
I blame the recent flood of so-called "informal fallacies" coupled with autodidact programmers who don't have a formal background in logic believing themselves to be competent logicians because they once heard about DeMorgan's laws.
I've noticed this, too: it seems that a sizeable fraction of the Slashdot community have taken the same "Intro to Logic" class at University (and most of them apparently got a poor grade).
Then why is it conceptually difficult to come up with underhanded rust code? If it's easy to shoot yourself in the foot with rust, and really hard to figure out what went wrong, then underhanded rust code should be dead simple to create.
It is also easy to just make code-logic errors. If the programmers believe they can be a lot less strict and careful (after all, Rust prevents "all" errors....), Rust is likely to amplify the problem. Same if "managers" believe they can use even less experienced people because Rust is so great.
The focus on memory-safety as the main problem is bogus. Sure, if you just count, these seem to be the most numerous. But they are easy to find, both for attackers and for (competent) developers. They are also easy to
No one has ever said that in earnest. I'm reasonably certain that you're the only person to have ever said that.
Same if "managers" believe they can use even less experienced people because Rust is so great.
No one is saying that either. Rust is not a good language for beginners and has a nasty learning curve that would quickly frustrate an inexperienced team.
You seem really upset with what I can only assume are completely imaginary people.
The only reason they have high numbers is general developer incompetence.
So it solves are real problem and helps prevent common errors. Isn't that what the guys railing against dynamic languages always complain about? That they
Why do you assume I am "upset"? I think you are just trying to belittle me in a transparent attempt to avoid actually addressing my points, i.e. talking down to somebody that basically behaves like a child. Pathetic.
Incidentally, you have not even begun to understand my points. Shows a lack of real-world insight and experience. No, that is not an insult, that is a diagnosis. Yes, I am placing myself above you here, as you clearly are not a peer to me.
The confusion of a staff member is measured by the length of his memos.
-- New York Times, Jan. 20, 1981
Wait a second... (Score:5, Insightful)
despite developers' positive feelings toward Rust, 97% of them hadn't actually used it.
Who says they love something they have not used???
I might say something seems decent, but no way would I say I *LOVE* a language until I've done a few real things in it.
The top issues that respondents say the Rust project could do to improve adoption of the language are better training and documentation, followed by better libraries, IDE integration, and improved compile times...
That is a pretty tall list of things that
Re: (Score:2)
despite developers' positive feelings toward Rust, 97% of them hadn't actually used it.
Who says they love something they have not used???
Somehow this reminds me of Ruby back in the day. Only back then, it was developers who only learned it the prior week being overly enthusiastic about it.
But yeah, Rust seems to have a huge cheerleader squad on various tech sites, that's definitely out of proportion with people who actually use it. Most of the actual Rust-based projects I've run across so far, tend to be novel (and not drop-in) replacements for various command line utilities. I almost never actually use these after installing them, because o
Re: (Score:5, Informative)
I think in some ways, it's perhaps because people love the idea of Rust as much or more than the language itself. The concept is pretty compelling, really - a compiler/language that actively presents you from shooting yourself in the foot, which C++ allows you to do if you step outside of "voluntary best practices", and which C seems to gleefully encourage with the slightest misstep. And all this while still achieving the fantastic run-time efficiency of a natively compiled language. What's not to love?
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. Also, you can shoot yourself in the foot with Rust just as easily, it will just be harder to find the problem later on. The whole approach they selected to market this thing seems a recipe for failure though. If you water down engineering discussions with SJW-nonsense, they are not engineering discussions anymore. Also, basically most good engineers will stay far away from such a community.
Re:Wait a second... (Score:2)
Indeed. Also, you can shoot yourself in the foot with Rust just as easily, it will just be harder to find the problem later on.
Citation needed.
As a counterpoint, Microsoft released research that stated 70 percent of all security bugs are memory safety issues [zdnet.com], the same bugs that Rust is designed to prevent.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Wait a second... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite. It refers to soldiers who do not want to get killed in battle.
Re:Wait a second... (Score:5, Interesting)
70% of all bugs, or just 70% of Microsoft's bugs? Note that Microsoft seems to have lost a lot of it's technical peak, which was never that high a peak to start with. If you look at their products as an example it's clear they're not focusing on efficiency or spending time to plan out APIs for the long term.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Also, you can shoot yourself in the foot with Rust just as easily, it will just be harder to find the problem later on.
Citation needed.
No. Real-world experience needed. It seems you lack that. The irrelevant counting-statistic you cite further underlines that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am too lazy to look up which fallacy you just used, but your comment is also pretty stupid. A general understanding what Rust is programming language is quite enough for that statement. You can easily shoot yourself in the foot in _all_ currently known programming paradigms, except ones where you cannot solve real problems and even there it is sometimes possible.
Re: (Score:2)
I am too lazy to look up which fallacy you just used
It doesn't matter. Naming "fallacies" is a pointless waste of time. It adds nothing to the discussion and there's an excellent chance that neither party actually understands the "fallacy" in question.
I blame the recent flood of so-called "informal fallacies" coupled with autodidact programmers who don't have a formal background in logic believing themselves to be competent logicians because they once heard about DeMorgan's laws.
You can easily shoot yourself in the foot in _all_ currently known programming paradigms
I don't buy it. Some languages make it significantly harder to do stupid thi
Re: (Score:1)
It doesn't matter. Naming "fallacies" is a pointless waste of time. It adds nothing to the discussion and there's an excellent chance that neither party actually understands the "fallacy" in question.
I blame the recent flood of so-called "informal fallacies" coupled with autodidact programmers who don't have a formal background in logic believing themselves to be competent logicians because they once heard about DeMorgan's laws.
I've noticed this, too: it seems that a sizeable fraction of the Slashdot community have taken the same "Intro to Logic" class at University (and most of them apparently got a poor grade).
Re: Wait a second... (Score:2)
Then why is it conceptually difficult to come up with underhanded rust code? If it's easy to shoot yourself in the foot with rust, and really hard to figure out what went wrong, then underhanded rust code should be dead simple to create.
Re: (Score:2)
It is also easy to just make code-logic errors. If the programmers believe they can be a lot less strict and careful (after all, Rust prevents "all" errors....), Rust is likely to amplify the problem. Same if "managers" believe they can use even less experienced people because Rust is so great.
The focus on memory-safety as the main problem is bogus. Sure, if you just count, these seem to be the most numerous. But they are easy to find, both for attackers and for (competent) developers. They are also easy to
Re: (Score:2)
after all, Rust prevents "all" errors....
No one has ever said that in earnest. I'm reasonably certain that you're the only person to have ever said that.
Same if "managers" believe they can use even less experienced people because Rust is so great.
No one is saying that either. Rust is not a good language for beginners and has a nasty learning curve that would quickly frustrate an inexperienced team.
You seem really upset with what I can only assume are completely imaginary people.
The only reason they have high numbers is general developer incompetence.
So it solves are real problem and helps prevent common errors. Isn't that what the guys railing against dynamic languages always complain about? That they
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you assume I am "upset"? I think you are just trying to belittle me in a transparent attempt to avoid actually addressing my points, i.e. talking down to somebody that basically behaves like a child. Pathetic.
Incidentally, you have not even begun to understand my points. Shows a lack of real-world insight and experience. No, that is not an insult, that is a diagnosis. Yes, I am placing myself above you here, as you clearly are not a peer to me.