TWiR quote of the week

One more from way down the cascade of comments of... variable quality:

I have concluded that the correct way, of thinking about OS’s is not as grand building designed and built for a purpose, with majestic skylines, but as city infrastructure, with streets and sewers, that should just work. However people will only notice your system when you overflow into the basement. A infrastructure that is not over taxed is in a city that is not growing, if your OS sucks because it is being taken places that won’t considered when it was first build, well there are worse fates.
-- Joe @

1 Like

Those quotes are hardly "of the week."

1 Like

Based on past submissions, I was under the impression that "of the week" could be relaxed into "that were discovered that week". (Though, admittedly, usually it was more "posted a week or two before the week of submission".)

1 Like

(Edit: a few days late, sorry; posted 9 days ago, bit didn't read it until just now)

CAD97 embraces the "confession" part of the Rust Confessional topic.

I like how it demonstrates the... perverse? effect of the Rust Community social standards: "came here for a quick joke, accidentally contributed meaningfully to the discussion.." is such a nice problem to have when interacting on the internet! :heart: @CAD97


...that said, if you'd prefer something recent, here's an observation that just got posted while I was sleeping:

Most companies in general only go far enough for security to the point that people are either unaware of the dangers or it appeases the common masses. That's generally why whenever serious vulnerabilities are revealed, they essentially "campaign" for them, coming up with catchy names like "Heartbleed" for example, so companies are basically forced into getting them fixed.
-- computerquip on Phoronix Forums

1 Like

Rust is funny because in one sense it's hard and clunky. However, it's only ever precisely as hard and clunky as it needs to be . Everywhere something can be made more concise, or readable, or convenient, without sacrificing any control, it has been. Anytime something is hard or inconvenient, it's because the underlying domain really is exactly that hard or inconvenient.

Contrast this with other languages, which are often clunky when they don't need to be and/or "easy" when they shouldn't be.

brundolf on Hacker News


Incidentally, having suffered under the limitations of coherent typeclasses while programming in Rust, I at least personally think they are far more trouble than they’re worth.

Although probably a proper quote would have to be the whole three paragraphs - rather too long for QOTW.

1 Like

That's not hacky, that's ... like fishing with dynamite charges. I like it.
I use a similar method when I am trying to debug (I call it "make the program explode in useful ways").

this comment by /u/otikik on the Rust subreddit


And as others have pointed out, you might think this unsafeness is just limited to the ketchup domain, but months later you'll be finding ketchup splattered thousands of lines of code away.


I think it should also have the comment it's replying to for context but, otherwise, it's a fun quote:

It is unsafe to cut the ketchup bottle in two so that two people can squeeze the two portions at the same time, but you might need to do that for a particularly large bottle of ketchup.


From "Ben" on Zulip:

Meta-Comment: I started this topic as someone completely uninvolved in the rust project. It's very reassuring seeing the nature of the response. Even knowing how fantastic the Rust community is, I was still prepared to be met with at least a small element of condescension given the nature of this issue. I haven't felt any sense of it. It's amazing. Anyone that has impact on the community culture deserves credit: This sort of experience doesn't come from nowhere. It comes from a long history of many people nudging things in the right direction.
Thank you.


From @3sbk :


This is not from this week, rather almost 3 months old, but, as usual, I like it when key ideas are expressed in a concise way:


I don't believe we allow negative cost abstractions.

bjorn3 on github:


In many cases, it is possible to completely rearchitect the underlying code while leaving the public API as-is, and without introducing new bugs. I've literally never had such a liberating experience with refactoring until Rust.

In other words, I have never been so productive in any other language. Dynamic languages like JavaScript and Python are the least productive by far . Code runs, tests pass, put it into production and... uncaught exception! Time to rollback and redo that whole dance AGAIN . With Rust, we take care of all of that crap while actually writing the code the first time. No more surprise 3am wake up calls. That is productivity.

@parasyte in Rust language efficacy and productivity


From twitter:

mate it's like when you and the lads are on discord givin em classic bants but you wanna bang out some code and you're thinkin gems or eggs but your mate Yehuda who's a LEDGE AND A HALF says nah mate let's grab some crates and get our borrows checked and you're like SORTED


From Reddit:

it was a pleasure even to just watch source code compile

We take great pride in our long compile times for a reason :wink:


This viewpoint is very controversial, and I have no capacity to debate it with anyone who disagrees with me. But Rust has a very powerful macro system, so I don’t have to.

From withoutboat's "From failure to Fehler"


The reason why I think it makes sense to prioritize perf over everything except safety is that, if Rust is not the fastest high-level programming language, important systems will be implemented in a faster, unsafe language.



Saw this on Reddit ( from a new Rustacean on how they feel learning Rust:

I'm a snowboarder that's learning how to ski. I have no idea why I have this extra thing on my other foot or poles in my hands. Also, I keep falling. I know eventually it gets better.