zlacker

> Rust is not an absolute guarantee of safety and doesn’t protect us from all the bugs.

That's not exactly the vibe I'm getting from the typical Rust fanboys popping up whenever there's another CVE caused by the usage of C or C++ though ;)

Rust does seem to attract the same sort of insufferable personalities that have been so typical for C++ in the past. Why that is, I have no idea.

>>flohof+(OP)
It protects against the leading 70 percent of CVEs, which are due to memory safety issues. This is all Rust has ever claimed to solve and it's all I've ever seen anyone cite when advocating for it.

If these people are insufferable to you, that I can't change your mind on. That said you might want to get used to it since major areas of industry are already considering C/C++ as deprecated (a paraphrasing from the Azure CTO recently)

>>flohof+(OP)
I wouldn't say the Rust community parallels the C++ community in any way. The rust community is more like the insufferable Haskell/FP community who, despite producing very little measurable commercial value continue to look down on everyone else.

Indeed, there's a lot of damage control going on in this thread walking back Rust's guarantees of safety despite that, up until this point, being Rust's only real selling point. It seems like every C/C++/Go/whatever repository has at least one issue suggesting a complete rewrite in Rust.

>>lucasy+R
I didn't know the Azure CTO was the CTO was the C++ community. I'm sure the billions of lines of code written in C++ for the finance industry would love to have a word.

The insufferable nature of the people isn't the advocating of safety. It's that Rust seems to have evolved a community of "X wouldn't have happened if Y was written in Rust!" and then walking away like they just transferred the one bit of knowledge everyone needed. They occupy less than 1% of the programming community and act like they single-handedly are the only people who understand correctness. It's this smug sense of superiority that is completely undeserved that makes the community insufferable. Not the safety "guarantees" of the language.

>>Test01+61
There's no "walking back" here. From Rust 1.0 the language was "guaranteed memory safety" https://web.archive.org/web/20150516132407/https://www.rust-...

>>Test01+61
> Haskell/FP community

As someone who worked on a lot of OCaml projects, I would like to assure you that the issue really is the Haskell community which I too find completely unbearable. The rest of the FP community is far nicer/less smug.

For a long time, they just thought it was a shame some innovative constructs seemed to be stuck in their favourite languages (first class functions, variant types, inference) and not percolating to the mainstream. This fight has mostly be won which is great.

>>Test01+Q1
> They occupy less than 1% of the programming community and act like they single-handedly are the only people who understand correctness.

Maybe I’m too young (just past 30) but is it just me or is that some kind of attitude that emerged in the last 10-15 years?

And I mean not only in programming, but in general.

A small amount of people which is very vocal about something and start pushing everybody else to their thing while simultaneously shaming and/or making fun of those who either disagree or aren’t generally interested.

I kinda see a pattern here.

Either way, it’s very annoying.

Going back to the rust topic… I recently started working with some software written in a mix of C++ and Java. I don’t own the codebase, I “just” have to get it working and keep it working. So i had to reach to another person for some performance issues and this guy starts the usual “should be rewritten in rust” … jesus christ dude, I don’t care for your fanboyism right know, either help me or tell me you won’t so I’ll looks somewhere else.

And of course, if as an outsider this is the experience I have to go through every time I deal with rust people… I’ll try to minimise my exposure to such people (and to the language, if necessary).

>>Wastin+c5
To be fair, the Haskell hype train has long passed, and I never perceived the Haskell community as insufferable. They're just preconcerned formulating everything in way too mathsy frameworks to the point of being extremely inproductive as from a "real world" programmer's perspective.

>>Test01+Q1
This is not the first time it's happened. JS is effectively deprecated in favor of TS in the hearts of programmers in that ecosystem. There was a lot of disagreement about this a decade ago, but TS is now at its 10 year anniversary and any serious project in that world should be written with static type definitions. It had the early adopters that were insufferable at the time, but they were right about the path and those that have jumped in are having a way better experience.

I think history will show that we can do a lot better than C/C++ and Rust is one of the best steps yet to show that. Rust will be replaced by something better some day and the cycle will repeat.

>>Test01+61
There’s nothing to walk back since the post does not contest Rust’s safety guarantees at all. The link is (by design or not) effectively click bait “Linus Torvalds says that Rust is not really safe”, when in reality it is just him saying that panicky (panic on programmer error) Rust code is inappropriate for the kernel and that Rust-in-Linux code should by default limp on when it has encountered an error. That is a perfectly reasonable point to make, but has got nothing to do with “safety” in the sense that the Rust project talks about that term.

>>flohof+(OP)
When the CVEs appear in Rust, they use that as proof that their technology is better because they found those errors. Or, those were just unsafe and therefore not "real" Rust.

>>znpy+8a
>A small amount of people which is very vocal about something and start pushing everybody else to their thing while simultaneously shaming and/or making fun of those who either disagree or aren’t generally interested.

It's called manufacturing consent and it's all around us.

>>Test01+61
This seems to me more like wishful thinking. The post is barely talking about memory safety. You have confused combination of title and some post reacting to title of the post.

>>Test01+61
I wonder if the Rust community now is similar to what the C++ community was like when C++ was as young as Rust is now. Any old-timers want to comment on this?

Edit to add: My guess is that the Rust community might still be worse because now we have widespread Internet access and social media.

>>mwcamp+Gl
And back then we had flamewars on comp.lang.c and comp.lang.c++, hence the .moderated versions of them.

I always been on the C++ side, when arguing on C vs C++ since 1993, already considered C a primitive option, coming from Turbo Pascal 6.0, and finding such a simplistic pseudo-macro assembler.

So yeah, in a sense the Rust community is similarly hyped as we were adopting Turbo Vision, CSet++, OWL, MFC, PowerPlant, Tools.h++, POET, and thinking C would slowly fade away, and we could just keep on using a language that while compatible with C, offered the necessary type system improvements for safer code.

But then the FOSS movement doubled down on C as means to write the GNU ecosystem, on the first editions of the GNU manifesto, and here we are.

>>ok1234+ig
If you’re citing the book from 1988, that looks interesting, I’ll add that to my to read list.

If not, would you care to drop some links?

>>ok1234+ig
That’s extremely ungenerous. I see the legitimate challenges with Rust as do most people I talk with who are C++ veterans. But we also all agree that C/C++ isn’t tenable in the long term. It might not be Rust that wins eventually but only because a better alternative pops up. Without a better alternative it’s going to be Rust. And let me tell you. The Rust team to date has been very good at building a very attractive ecosystem and bringing people along. The people who are Rust advocates that I’ve come across tend to be extremely thoughtful individuals and not just fanboys latching onto something cool.

>>Test01+61
> insufferable Haskell/FP community who, despite producing very little measurable commercial value continue to look down on everyone else.

I just took a break from creating measurable commercial value in Haskell.

Grab a Starbucks, shop at Target, or use Facebook recently?

Congrats, you used production Haskell code delivering measurable commercial value to you and millions of others.

>>jstimp+wa
> To be fair, the Haskell hype train has long passed, and I never perceived the Haskell community as insufferable. They're just preconcerned formulating everything in way too mathsy frameworks to the point of being extremely inproductive as from a "real world" programmer's perspective.

See my comment upthread, you seem to be misinformed on the use and prevalence of Haskell in the real world.