I write Rust code. I don’t mind it. But the truth is, I use very little of the language.
I visit the Discord, and I see all the crazy overcomplicated shit these people are writing.
If I had to try and make heads or tails of some of that shit I’d go crazy.
I actually think some of it is actual trolling by Rust itself.
And yes, the people are toxic. It’s like they really believe C and C++ and everyone else did literally everything wrong. And some of their justifications are seriously weak sauce.
And remember, I like Rust. At least the parts I use. But it’s easily going to eclipse C++ in complexity if it continues the way it has been operating.
Yup, definitely the Rust users who are toxic. Totally not the people going into every thread about Rust to tell everyone about how toxic Rust users are. Nope.
But it is true, you see way more comments complaining about "the toxic Rust community" than said toxic community itself. At some point it just becomes annoying and tiring...
You didn't talk about this thread in your previous posts, you talked generally about the community just like I did. However, to answer your question: Yes, I've spotted some, and they are rather annoying.
The breaking changes version to version. Zig tends to be quite liberal about moving forward, as should be expected at its version level. It simply outpaces the llms datasets.
I feel like this article means well, but assembly or machine level types are not the same. Sure, the assembler and cpu will execute the instruction with the given type, but the next instruction can use a different instruction with different types and no one will be any the wiser. So one operation’s uint64 is another operation’s int64.
The type data in assembly doesn’t live with the data itself, nor are types for data stored anywhere.
I get the point but I think it just misses the mark.
Citation needed? Where did you hear that this is a routine occurrence? That seems risky for everybody involved, and it requires a report to the government from the seller.
Because the legal system in most Western countries is set up that the seller bears liability for laundering money if they accept duffel bags of cash for a car without the same documentation a bank would require.
This is absolutely not true in the US. Are you trying to tee up one of those "the US is not a developed country" type quips that are popular around here?
A dealership may take issue with it but a private party accepts no liability by taking cash.
Firstly, I said "Western" not "developed", you need to calibrate your quip detector lest you become what you dislike.
Secondly, while it's possible to construct a private party transaction in the US where this is fine, if the person spending the duffel bag acquired the money illegally, you the seller are liable if you should have known. "Willful blindness" when accepting illegal proceeds makes you liable too. See 18 U.S.C. § 1957
Maybe I misspoke by saying you would be liable for laundering specifically, but certainly accepting that money is a crime if you have any reason to think it was ill-gotten. And that's a huge risk that no one wants to take on.
The difference, and I think we as an industry will have to reconcile this depending on how advanced llms get, is that you don’t see the quality in handmade code like you do in a high end watch or a luxury automobile or appliance. The veneer might be identical. It’s going to be tough to convince people that handmade software has added value or quality over slop. I still believe it does right now, but that might not always be true. And this is an industry that has pumped out a lot of sloppy code for decades, even before it was actual slop.
well this is not exactly unique to software. It is not a given that the 'handmade' nature of a product (luxury or otherwise) manifests in anything tangible or self-evidently superior. Luxury products in general overwhelmingly treat the crafted nature of the product as almost solely an investment in narrative (read: marketing) and market positioning, not an actual material outcome.
I like this take a lot. Posting a counter-example not because I disagree but because I think it’s interesting.
Ghostty is a terminal emulator with a pretty good narrative. The author is very accessible on podcasts to go over the story. It is also actually very good though. I think the jump in performance and usability put it on the map before the narrative could help push it further. The product does have to actually be good before the crafted nature can be invested into.
What're you talking about? I can instantly detect if software was created with AI. It has a stench much like a cheap product who's materials off gassing, and Im certainly not using it over the handmade solution. There will always be two options, like in clothes or watches.
Maybe you should take a step back and realize that sofware developers themselves are not the primary purchasers of most software. The average joe or jane purchaser doesn't have some magical AI slop detector, especially if the UI is well done.
I didnt downvote you, I cant. But I have yet to see a vibe coded project have good UI/UX. You'd be surprised how much thought and intention goes into making a great UI. An LLM simply cant, guided or unguided.
I actually predict that frontend devs and designers will become more valuable in the coming years as people (stupidly) abandon these disciplines.
Yes, many people instinctively stay away from anything microsoft (except github, typescript and npm). But the stack is solid. I’m always reminded of Stack Overflow and how they built on asp.net and like 7 servers and it scaled very well for years.
Everyone has what they like and what they’re familiar with, and for better or worse, especially for startups it’s rarely .net. But I couldn’t imagine e.g. using js instead on the back end, but that’s just me.
I visit the Discord, and I see all the crazy overcomplicated shit these people are writing.
If I had to try and make heads or tails of some of that shit I’d go crazy.
I actually think some of it is actual trolling by Rust itself.
And yes, the people are toxic. It’s like they really believe C and C++ and everyone else did literally everything wrong. And some of their justifications are seriously weak sauce.
And remember, I like Rust. At least the parts I use. But it’s easily going to eclipse C++ in complexity if it continues the way it has been operating.