So much of the discourse around programming languages is totemistic. "X-lang is simple" "Y-lang is fast" "Z-lang scales."
-
-
fast is the odd one out on that list because there are objective ways to measure it
-
kind of? Always leads to shenanigans. That's why the bench game is trying force "idiomatic/out-of-the-box" impls.
-
I don't think "fast" is a useful context-free metric, but Rust is trying to say "we're trying to do all three"
-
which is genuinely useful regardless of whether you can measure Rust perf in absolute terms vs. say C
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
imo "fast" is just an easier to grok/measure proxy for "provides control".
-
I see these kinds of things as ways to evaluate new features. "Is this feature fast and safe" is a good question, 1/
-
"is this feature simple" is a shit show. 2/2
-
there's also a difference in how these words are used in an RFC thread vs by third parties on the orange website
-
even the best language designers claim things are "simple" and just push the complexity bubble somewhere else.
-
Rust futures are "more complex than they need to be" but are really simple when fully accounting for costs.
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.