TWiR quote of the week

That said, I really like the language. It’s as if someone set out to design a programming language, and just picked all the right answers. Great ecosystem, flawless cross platform, built-in build tools, no “magic”, static binaries, performance-focused, built-in concurrency checks. Maybe these “correct” choices are just laser-targeted at my soul, but in my experience, once you leap over the initial hurdles, it all just works™️, without much fanfare.


"The goal isn’t to have an eternally good programming languages; the goal is to have tools now."

from Rust: A New Attempt at C++'s Main Goal :: The Coded Message by Jimmy Hartzell


From Concerns about embedded real time linux using rust


As the Captain Anton Fetisov once said,

(the rest of the paragraph is good too, but cut like this is just too good of a cultural reference to miss)


Thanks to all for the very helpful responses. "The Book" says The community is very welcoming and happy to answer students’ questions "; I expected that to be just marketing, but I was wrong.

By @Daryl in w\Why is it called "unit"?


"That's one of the great things about Rust: sometimes you can do something really dumb and get away with it."

-- Rik Arends at RustNL, talking about code optimization or the lack thereof


I do wish that people could see Rust as more than a better C/C++. It's an amazing language for web services and CLIs.

It's not just that it doesn't have a GC. It also doesn't have some of the worst features of OOP, it also has a sane std library, it also has an expressive type system, etc. Rust helps you write better code, even when compared to languages like Java or Python.

insanitybit on Hacker News


That is an odd comparison to me. Java does very little to help write better code, Python even less. A comparison to something like Ada would be more fitting.

This is what I get for taking a quote out of context :grinning:

The parent comment compared Rust to C/C++; the one I quoted argues that Rust shines not only as a C/C++ replacement, but also when compared to higher level languages and applied to tasks where you wouldn't typically be reaching for C/C++ (web services).

...some people found error messages they couldn't ignore more annoying than wrong results, and, when judging the relative merits of programming languages, some still seem to equate "the ease of programming" with the ease of making undetected mistakes.

On the foolishness of "natural language programming", E.W. Dijkstra


It was a public post and making joke using a marginalized community.

Due to the nature of this thread, I think it's best to – if possible – avoid answering to posts too far back :wink:

These open-source projects show that Rust provides both high performance and pace of development while also attracting a lot of contributors. There is a long-standing tradition of developing tooling for a programming language using that language. Rust breaks from this tradition quite effectively.

There are a few other possible quotes in the article, worth reading in full.

Yeah. I spaced out and didn't notice the date.

1 Like

From an exchange I had over here.


I'd like to propose this quote from the Rust matrix channel as quote of the week:

As sometimes we need to remember to care for life beyond our software. :slight_smile: :crab:




His last paragraph has been obsolete for a few months now, and the whole world will soon find out how apt the rest of the essay is

We shall see. At the end of the day, the hard part of programming has always been high-level, big-picture planning with an understanding of the system's strengths and weaknesses.

If GPT-4 can do a better job of that than any other attempt to give "the people who already have the domain knowledge for the business" direct ability to write the code, we have a lot more to worry about as a society than some lost programmer jobs.

Likewise, I don't see how it alters his statement that moving from natural language to formal syntax was important for the evolution of mathematics. It's essentially the same problem as people asking for a way to add Rust's guarantees to C++ without all that complex retrofitting annotation of invariants that gets disguised as "writing Rust bindings".