TWiR quote of the week

[raidwas]

I like the quote, but I think it is slightly misleading because rust does in fact not give you a guarantee that a destructor is called.
There is a whole bunch of problems caused by this in the async context for example.

[JelteF]

As usual, the borrow checker is correct: we are doing memory crimes.

Making Python 100x faster with less than 100 lines of Rust

[bugaevc]

As an expert at being ignorant of what Pin does, I can assert with expertise that other ignorant readers have a hard time with Pin

@grom in Pin tutorial are confusing me

After all, we had April Fools this week

[afetisov]

Error types should be located near to their unit of fallibility.

By Sabrina Jewson.

The post itself is unfortunately not meme-friendly, but I think an in-depth discussion of errors with a readymade proposed solution is worth the people's attention.

[ssokolow]

I'm not sure whether it's tonally appropriate to push it into people's attention again, but this certainly feels like it succinctly embodies the most significant event of this week:

but Tide and Clorox don't have a community, they have customers. The reason why the Rust mark has any value is that there is a community of people who love using it.

-- Robert Swinford @ Why the Rust Trademark Policy was such a problem... - kimono koans

[ZiCog]

@ssokolow

Tide and Clorox

Hmm,,, what on Earth are Tide and Clorox?

Sure I could google it. But really, I have enough to google every day.

[ssokolow]

Candidates for the best-known brands of laundry detergent and bleach in North America, respectively.

(It's the same "Tide" as in that "don't eat Tide Pods" thing.)

[jhpratt]

You don't want to see my draft. It's too spicy to ever see the light of day. You have to scream "trans rights" while wearing a crab costume before you're allowed to say "Rust" on a phone call with your mom

– Sage on Reddit

[afetisov]

Nothing says "we heard your concerns" like a public mocking by the PR representative.

[H2CO3]

I couldn't really process what that wanted to say (or the context). I see that it's in the same thread where the much loathed trademark policy is discussed. Is it meant to imply a requirement of some sort of explicit political activism in the name of a specific group? If so, that sounds totally unacceptable to me.

[ssokolow]

*nod* I think it's about as appropriate a QOTW as previous ones that were considered inappropriate for being a little too focused on the negatives of other programming languages.

[jhpratt]

Note: You can click "context" on that comment. It is 100% intended to be a joke. It's in response to Manish, who undoubtedly knows Sage (and vice versa); it's not a mocking at all.

[ssokolow]

1. It's still easy to misinterpret in divisive ways.
2. As I've said before...

quotes are, by definition, taken out of context. Thus, regardless of how good it is in context, it's of questionable suitability for a QOTW.

[jhpratt]

Feel free to like other comments? It's not like I'm forcing anyone to vote for it

[steffahn]

I feel like, the way Reddit links posts without visible context by default is causing confusion here. This is the link to the comment with context. (Starting with some deleted post whose contents we can only guess^[1].) The quoted response here was 4 comments deep in a joke discussion between Sage and Manishearth.

Click to show quoted full discussion

@(comment deleted)

"We've not read the feedback yet. We pinky swear to be more open on the process going forward, but not yet, gotta lawyer up first. pls stop yelling ;_;"

@Manishearth

Yes, they got a ton of feedback, of course they haven't read it all yet. They're giving out a very useful signal here: they acknowledge there are problems and want to fix them, as opposed to a situation where they're intending to push forward without further community input, which was what a lot of the community was uncertain about.

Would you like them to rush this? Because I do not think we can expect more from them at this point, this is going to be a slow process, especially since as far as I understand it whenever they want to actually draft things (or figure out if something can be expressed in the trademark policy) they need to talk to a (probably not cheap) lawyer.

@Sage (rabidferret)

Manish if you don't want us to rush this why are you dming me asking if we're done yet

@Manishearth

sage why are you wasting time on reddit when you could be finishing the next draft, hmmm???

@Sage (rabidferret)

You don't want to see my draft. It's too spicy to ever see the light of day. You have to scream "trans rights" while wearing a crab costume before you're allowed to say "Rust" on a phone call with your mom

@Manishearth

wonderful, ship it

That being said, I would personally agree that perhaps a (self-described) shitpost is not necessarily the best quote of the week… even more so if it’s heavily contextual

---

1. or look up on archive sites… ↩︎

[Sophie]

1. procmacroable /ˌprɔkˈmækroʊəbəl/ a. Implementable as a procedural macro.

­(Mara on GitHub)

[pickfire]

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.

Writing a Fast C# Code-Search Tool in Rust — John Austin

[edomaur]

"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

[piegames]

How to access vector from multiple threads without mutex?

For every "I know what I am doing", there's a corresponding "well, actually".

[Michael-F-Bryan]

From Concerns about embedded real time linux using rust

@parasyte

Since it hasn't been said before, there is an important distinction that needs to be addressed. For anyone who has been doing embedded work for any length of time and hasn't yet been exposed to Rust, the only thing that can really be said is that the language is entirely unlike everything you've experienced before. There is just nothing comparable, and the only way to rationalize questions like why use Rust at all is to put some honest effort into learning and using it.

Hearing things like "it's a bit like C++ except it's memory safe and thread safe, and it's actually practical to build kernels with it" will not sound convincing. You have to see it to believe it.

It's as if you've spent an entire career writing assembly, and one day you hear something or other about a brand-new programming language claiming to be a "portable assembler" called C. It sounds too good to be true. And then the years pass, and all of the mystery and disbelief gives way to obviousness and precision engineering. That's sort of how it is when going from C to Rust.