you work on a lang whose tagline is "safe, fast, concurrent" and is frequently compared to one whose rallying cry is "simple"
-
-
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 -
Replying to @wycats @withoutboats
imo "fast" is just an easier to grok/measure proxy for "provides control".
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @Gankro @withoutboats
I see these kinds of things as ways to evaluate new features. "Is this feature fast and safe" is a good question, 1/
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
"is this feature simple" is a shit show. 2/2
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
there's also a difference in how these words are used in an RFC thread vs by third parties on the orange website
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @withoutboats @Gankro
even the best language designers claim things are "simple" and just push the complexity bubble somewhere else.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Rust futures are "more complex than they need to be" but are really simple when fully accounting for costs.
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.