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...
One thing that pushed me away from Rust was the breathless and misleading hype.
Just like almost all languages, from Basic to VB to Python, SQL to JavaScript to common Lisp and Perl, Fortran to Flash (Actionscript) and C++, Rust has a string variable type. Therefore it's perfectly secure - you can't make any oversights in security if you use Rust, the cheerleaders claim. Because the only security issue there cannhe is buffer overflow, which isn't an issue in Rust, they say.
Of course the only commonly used language that does routinely use direct memory addresses for variables, and therefore lets you overflow them, is C. Virtually EVERY other language uses the safer but slower method. Rust isn't special in this regard. In fact it would be special if it DID use string pointers routinely like C does - and pretty much only C does.
That means anything written in Rust is safe and secure, right? Buffer overflows are the only security issue there is, so That is safe, right? Cross-site scripting doesn't exist, cross-site request forgery doesn't exist, SQL injection amd shell injection aren't terms, and function-level authorization isn't an issue. That's what the Rust cheerleaders are implying, because Rust doesn't protect against any of that. Just write in Rust and you're safe they say and/or imply. Yeah right, everything written in Java must be perfectly safe too, never any security issues in Struts, since it doesn't have buffer overflows.
I've studied and worked with thousands of security vulnerabilities and exploited at least hundreds of them, of not more than a thousand. Rust doesn't do anything that help prevent but a tiny fraction of those. I can think of exactly ONCE that I exploited a buffer overflow and that was just as a demo and required forcibly compiling it with all the protections off because C compilers automatically protect from most buffer overflow exploits these days.
So anyway the main thing the Rust fanbois say all the time is a lie - a dangerous lie. That definitely turns me off.
> Who says they love something they have not used???
That's hype for you. Half of Slashdot is in love with Tesla, though they've never touched one. Coincidentally, Elon Musk is the best hype man of the 21st century, maybe the best since Barnum. A lot of people love socialism, just not any of the people who have tried it.
A lot of people love socialism, just not any of the people who have tried it. The amount of people who have an irrational hate against it is much much higher, you seem to be an example for that.
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
The breathless misleading hype puts me off (Score:2)
One thing that pushed me away from Rust was the breathless and misleading hype.
Just like almost all languages, from Basic to VB to Python, SQL to JavaScript to common Lisp and Perl, Fortran to Flash (Actionscript) and C++, Rust has a string variable type. Therefore it's perfectly secure - you can't make any oversights in security if you use Rust, the cheerleaders claim. Because the only security issue there cannhe is buffer overflow, which isn't an issue in Rust, they say.
Of course the only commonly used language that does routinely use direct memory addresses for variables, and therefore lets you overflow them, is C. Virtually EVERY other language uses the safer but slower method. Rust isn't special in this regard. In fact it would be special if it DID use string pointers routinely like C does - and pretty much only C does.
That means anything written in Rust is safe and secure, right? Buffer overflows are the only security issue there is, so That is safe, right? Cross-site scripting doesn't exist, cross-site request forgery doesn't exist, SQL injection amd shell injection aren't terms, and function-level authorization isn't an issue. That's what the Rust cheerleaders are implying, because Rust doesn't protect against any of that. Just write in Rust and you're safe they say and/or imply. Yeah right, everything written in Java must be perfectly safe too, never any security issues in Struts, since it doesn't have buffer overflows.
I've studied and worked with thousands of security vulnerabilities and exploited at least hundreds of them, of not more than a thousand. Rust doesn't do anything that help prevent but a tiny fraction of those. I can think of exactly ONCE that I exploited a buffer overflow and that was just as a demo and required forcibly compiling it with all the protections off because C compilers automatically protect from most buffer overflow exploits these days.
So anyway the main thing the Rust fanbois say all the time is a lie - a dangerous lie. That definitely turns me off.
> Who says they love something they have not used???
That's hype for you. Half of Slashdot is in love with Tesla, though they've never touched one. Coincidentally, Elon Musk is the best hype man of the 21st century, maybe the best since Barnum. A lot of people love socialism, just not any of the people who have tried it.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people love socialism, just not any of the people who have tried it.
The amount of people who have an irrational hate against it is much much higher, you seem to be an example for that.
Re: (Score:2)
So the rules are to find a country where socialism worked, but you can't count any country where it actually worked. Only failures count.
Right.
Re: (Score:2)
It works all over Europe ...