That's fair, but a lot of what we're doing is just translating over concepts that are already baked into the language design. A lot of these specs wouldn't be type-able in other general purpose languages. So I don't think you can cleanly separate RustBelt from the design of Rust.
-
-
Replying to @awesomeintheory @johnregehr and
That's true, but I also think it answers neither the question "why does rust work when cyclone etc don't" nor "why was a design paper on rust hard to publish".
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @samth @awesomeintheory and
My sense is that academia thought substructural type systems were a dead end at the time, and it was going to be very hard to get anything about them published no matter what. It’s just the sense I had though; could be wrong.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I think academics may have a tendency to think that if ideas don’t catch on in practice that it’s because they’re inherently flawed. But in many (most?) cases failure to achieve industry success is due to poor execution or just bad luck, not because of the ideas.
6 replies 4 retweets 18 likes -
I don't agree with the first part of this take-- academics can create whole communities, running for decades, with very little adoption in practice of the ideas
3 replies 0 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @johnregehr @samth and
Yeah, maybe it more has to do with having a champion in the field. Substructural type systems didn’t seem to have many champions in academia when Rust came on the scene.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
which means you faced this uphill battle, which sucks. but once this energy barrier is overcome, subsequent papers have a much easier time.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @johnregehr @samth and
Which ironically was easier to do outside academia—building industry adoption basically forced academics to take it seriously. BTW I’m aiming to do the same with Pathfinder—the graphics community has a bias against 2D and incorrectly considers it a solved problem. Same dynamic.
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @pcwalton @johnregehr and
I have a basic bias against people calling things 'solved problems'. Until things are simple, easy, easy to compile, reuse, fast, work everywhere, they aren't solved. And we need reimplementations/reimaginings to fix it.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @rikarends @pcwalton and
Just like Rust reimagined C++, vector graphics, HTML, UI, all is up for reimagining if we can decomplect, outperform, and just plain make things more rapidly workable.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I agree of course. Bias against 2D is also irrational given how much time people spend reading text on a screen vs. consuming 3D media. Or from an economic point of view: 3D graphics power Hollywood, but 2D graphics power Apple.
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.