So much of the discourse around programming languages is totemistic. "X-lang is simple" "Y-lang is fast" "Z-lang scales."
-
-
Replying to @withoutboats
you work on a lang whose tagline is "safe, fast, concurrent" and is frequently compared to one whose rallying cry is "simple"
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Gankro
i dont even want to get into that, just the way people compare them is so ill-informed and yet confident. ahh programmers
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @withoutboats @Gankro
A language can say what its *values* are without becoming totemic. Easier to vet a feature for "safe" than "simple"
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
"fast" is incredibly tricky, but I think the best way to understand Rust's tagline is "Safe & Concurrent, and 1/
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
objectively faster than other languages that can reasonably claim to be safe and concurrent" 2/2
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
fast is the odd one out on that list because there are objective ways to measure it
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @withoutboats @wycats
kind of? Always leads to shenanigans. That's why the bench game is trying force "idiomatic/out-of-the-box" impls.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Gankro @withoutboats
I don't think "fast" is a useful context-free metric, but Rust is trying to say "we're trying to do all three"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
which is genuinely useful regardless of whether you can measure Rust perf in absolute terms vs. say C
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.