True. But also, in my experience big companies are made of small teams. Some teams will pioneer. Some will wait until a trail is blazed. Some will wait for an interstate highway system.
-
-
Replying to @_msw_ @iamagrover
In other words, size of company adopting may not matter too much, in my opinion. Because what a language needs is a robust community of practice. Companies are part of cultivating a community of practice, but they are fundamentally made of individuals.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @_msw_ @iamagrover
It does matter to convince leadership in smaller companies, they wonder who will hurt if the tech gets hit by bugs, companies like Amazon relying on Rust for critical infra is a signal of lower risk of adoption for others
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @acruiz @iamagrover
That's a good point. It's valid thing to evaluate in new technology adoption. Adoption by organizations known to have rigorous practices may indicate maturity, and that can lower risk. But the availability of skilled practitioners is more important in my view.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Because without them, your ability to recover from a problem will be limitated (assuming you have some code to run in the first place for the problem at hand).
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
And the only way to know if something really works is to put it into practice. And, again, this requires practitioners. From there you can have success (and failure) stories. Stories from practitioners at companies with robust practices often carry more weight...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
But, not all "big companies" are known to have robust practices. Small companies, and also open source communities, can have incredibly robust practices. Therefore I would counsel technology leaders to evaluate adoption with that in mind.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I think we're at an odd stage of Rust. It's mostly used by teams for whom its features make the least productivity difference, but who find it simpatico and are willing to pay some small penalties to sponsor and nudge it along for the greater common good.
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Feels simpler than that to me: It's being adopted by teams with extreme safety/perf requirements who are willing to take a productivity & learning-curve hit to meet those requirements
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Why are we assuming Rust has a lesser productivity yield than other languages/frameworks?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Just observing a usual new language tax. There's a natural hit to productivity at first due to the time spent learning it and making some mistakes, and there's an immaturity of tooling around it. Takes time for build, CI&CD, static analysis/FV to catch up.
-
-
Yet Rust shines on many of these aspects compared to well established langs and their ecosystems
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
But granted, the initial learning curve is steep
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.