• Croquette@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    More than half the points are just good engineering practice directly embedded in the language.

    It tells a lot about the state of programming in general with the pushback we see with memory safe languages.

    I’m down with Rust and I can’t wait for official support for embedded Rust in chip manufacturers, because until then, very few clients will be okay with using unofficial Rust cargos for their products.

    • esa@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Yeah, that’s the correctness focus. Some people dislike it as a straitjacket, some even take it as a personal insult because they see it as a skill issue. They, the good devs, shouldn’t be held back like that (spoiler: they aren’t as good as they think they are).

      Personally I like that aspect of Rust, but I also write Python with a typechecker and a loong list of enabled lints in ruff. I can get the happy path done without it, but having just the happy path often isn’t good enough.

      Enforced correctness helps a lot with confidence for those of us who know we sometimes make bad assumptions or forget some nuance or detail. But it will be absolutely infuriating for people who can’t stand being told they made an error, even one of omission.