[mustache_kimono]

You do you. Maybe it isn't said often enough, but each side (Rust-lovers and Rust-haters) has to be confident enough to allow others to disagree.

However, let's be serious, the anti-Rust crowd has not been some bastion of high-minded virtue with its flimsy arguments ("Just write better code..." and "Modern C++ doesn't have these issues..."), mole hill matters of taste ("Egads! The syntax!"), drive by hype hate, and unexplained red-herring cul de sacs ("I doesn't have a spec!" Okay, why do you need a spec?).

> I'm defending my position because it appears you all think it's not acceptable. You're wrong.

I'm not sure this and sentiments like it represent something less narrow-minded? Most of the time, it seems kinda resentful?

[ghoward]

Because it is. And it is because you all say things that imply people like me are terrible, awful, evil, no-good, very bad people for not using Rust.

We are not. We just have different preferences.

You all have also implied that we are negligent for using C. I don't know about others, but I have not been.

That's why I have the challenge to break a release of my `bc`. I actually have not been negligent because I do put in the effort required to eliminate memory bugs as much as possible.

Until the RESF refrains from implying we are bad or negligent for not using Rust, we will be resentful.

[ModernMech]

> You all have also implied that we are negligent for using C. I don't know about others, but I have not been.

I’m sorry that people have implied that, but I feel most of the time when Rust people say languages like C should be retired or deprecated, are doing so because your skill and attention to detail does not scale.

Maybe you personally have advanced enough to write safe code, and you have the requisite skills and insight to avoid any and all memory bugs, such that your C code is just as safe as what Rust would compile. That’s great.

But there’s always someone starting out and they will not have your skills. They will make the use after free, null pointer deference, buffer overflows, and other issues that the C language not only allow but encourage.

So the question is: how long do we tolerate new programmers making these mistakes in production code, leading to bugs and exploits for all, when other languages are readily available that would have caught those mistakes before reaching production? C was released 50 years ago, and in the intervening time a lot has been learned about how to write programs, and what language features are desirable in enforcing those practices. We also learned that when practiced aren’t enforced, they aren’t followed. So “just write modern c++”, which is espoused throughout this thread, doesn’t work to make c++ code safer, because it’s not enforced. Not taking advantage of those lessons learned seems like folly, irrespective of how bug-free your particular C codebase is.

[ghoward]

> I’m sorry that people have implied that, but I feel most of the time when Rust people say languages like C should be retired or deprecated, are doing so because your skill and attention to detail does not scale.

This is a fair argument.

On the other hand, I wish we had less software so that attention to detail did not need to scale.

For example, I run a Gentoo machine with the Awesome Window Manager and no systemd. The end result is less than 50 processes running after I login.

My machine is powerful, but if I were running Gnome, it would still feel laggy. With this minimal setup, my machine is snappy even when running an update and compiling Rust, Chrome, Firefox, or anything else. (I did have to make my update script renice Portage to the lowest priority to make that happen, but it works.)

Nevertheless, it is good when less attention to detail is needed.

I'm making my own C replacement, and I'm going to rewrite my current project in it when it's done. It will be about as safe as Rust, if not safer because it will not have async/await.

> Maybe you personally have advanced enough to write safe code, and you have the requisite skills and insight to avoid any and all memory bugs, such that your C code is just as safe as what Rust would compile. That’s great.

Thank you.

> But there’s always someone starting out and they will not have your skills. They will make the use after free, null pointer deference, buffer overflows, and other issues that the C language not only allow but encourage.

Yes, they will. But I view this argument as equivalent to "roll your own crypto."

If no one actually rolls their own crypto, then we as an industry will lose the ability to do so, even when we need to. If nobody uses C, then we as an industry will lose the ability to do so, even when we need to.

When I started writing `bc`, I sucked at C. `bc` was so full of security holes.

So what I did was spend enormous amounts of time on the test suite and asserts and then hooked those up with sanitizers and Valgrind. Patterns of bugs repeated over and over.

But I eventually got to a point where I started to get good. I didn't release a 1.0 before that point; I waited until I was good and had done thorough checks with as many tools as I could learn.

I'm currently learning and implementing crypto. I am following the same process, except that I'll add in professional code audits by actual cryptographers, which I have to pass before I release the code.

I'm doing this because someone has to.

> So the question is: how long do we tolerate new programmers making these mistakes in production code, leading to bugs and exploits for all, when other languages are readily available that would have caught those mistakes before reaching production?

We should not tolerate this in production code, but this is a failure of the industry. Why are beginners writing production code in the first place?

This industry grew too fast for its own good. It would have been better if it had had a master and apprentice model. The best programmers would be "masters" (in the sense of master and apprentice), and juniors would be apprentices who would write code under the master until the master thought them good enough to be journeymen (moving up from junior), and over time, such journeymen would themselves come to be recognized as masters, and the cycle would repeat.

If the industry does not do that, we may soon lose the ability to do things we need to do.

(Funnily enough, this is another argument for less software because there will be less people to write production software, and they'll all be good at it.)

> C was released 50 years ago, and in the intervening time a lot has been learned about how to write programs, and what language features are desirable in enforcing those practices. We also learned that when practiced aren’t enforced, they aren’t followed. So “just write modern c++”, which is espoused throughout this thread, doesn’t work to make c++ code safer, because it’s not enforced. Not taking advantage of those lessons learned seems like folly, irrespective of how bug-free your particular C codebase is.

Surprisingly, I agree with you that it's folly. I really do. In my original post, I ended it by saying

> But seriously, use Rust if it's available for your target platforms, and you have no other preference.

People really should do that, even though I don't like Rust.

All I was doing was just to remind everyone that there is a time and a place for C.

By the way, the reason I don't use Rust is because I'm pretty sure I would actually write buggier code in Rust than in C. The reason for this is async/await: I just can't get it. I mean, I do get it, but the rules seem too complicated for my brain to do as safely as I can do threads and locks.

I think I am one of those people for whom async/await is dangerous, just like there are those that just can't get Lisp or Haskell.

I say this so people know I'm not some great programmer; I have my weaknesses like everybody else.

So it would be folly for me personally to write Rust.

At the same time, yes, it is folly to write anything but Rust if it works for you.

[stouset]

> This industry grew too fast for its own good. It would have been better if it had had a master and apprentice model. The best programmers would be "masters" (in the sense of master and apprentice), and juniors would be apprentices who would write code under the master until the master thought them good enough to be journeymen (moving up from junior), and over time, such journeymen would themselves come to be recognized as masters, and the cycle would repeat.

I 1,000% agree with this perspective. I also actually suspect that some form of professional licensing and/or personal liability would benefit the industry greatly, in that it would give more power to engineers to decline to build software irresponsibly due to pressure from management. Obviously this would be wildly complicated and there would be (potentially intolerable) downsides, but I do wonder what things would look like if we could revoke the licenses of people who repeatedly exercise poor judgment, or if responsible engineers knew they had the backing of a professional organization when pushing back against management.

The irony isn't lost on me that elsewhere in this thread I said that nobody is coming after your software engineering license if you keep writing C :) And I do realize that would probably be a disastrous idea in practice. But in my mind it's great.

And while I do agree that the industry grew too fast for its own good, this is unfortunately the reality we live in. The need for software has exceeded both our ability to produce it reliably and our capacity for training qualified engineers. So we have countless junior developers writing production code without good mentors. And worse, I think we also have a terrifying number of "senior" engineers who are actually junior engineers with a lot of experience but trapped in a local maximum. I don't know how we fix this.

> By the way, the reason I don't use Rust is because I'm pretty sure I would actually write buggier code in Rust than in C. The reason for this is async/await: I just can't get it. I mean, I do get it, but the rules seem too complicated for my brain to do as safely as I can do threads and locks.

I "get" async/await but I… hate that it has to exist. I avoid it in all of my Rust projects. Partly because I don't want to use it, but also because I've never needed to solve a problem in a domain where it would have been invaluable. So just so you know, I've been writing Rust since right around 1.0 and I've been essentially able to just pretend it doesn't exist. I've never used it, but also I've never had to think about not using it if that makes sense.

[ghoward]

> I 1,000% agree with this perspective. I also actually suspect that some form of professional licensing and/or personal liability would benefit the industry greatly, in that it would give more power to engineers to decline to build software irresponsibly due to pressure from management.

I also 1,000% agree with this. In fact, if there is any activism I do within the industry, it's pushing for this.

> Obviously this would be wildly complicated and there would be (potentially intolerable) downsides, but I do wonder what things would look like if we could revoke the licenses of people who repeatedly exercise poor judgment, or if responsible engineers knew they had the backing of a professional organization when pushing back against management.

I don't think there would be any downside other than expensive software. But studies have shown that poor software is more expensive!

The one thing that would complicate it is Open Source, but I think that hobbyists should be allowed to practice and put code up with no vetting, just like an engineer might design a shed for his backyard and post it on a blog without his/her seal of approval.

However, if some company decides to use that shed/Open Source code in a project, that company's certified engineers/programmers should be required to vet it the same as they would do for their own code.

And as for the gatekeeping of certification, I think uncertified programmers should be allowed to program, but under the supervision of a certified programmer who accepts liability for their work because that chief programmer should be checking their work.

> The irony isn't lost on me that elsewhere in this thread I said that nobody is coming after your software engineering license if you keep writing C :)

Maybe a litte irony, but I would probably be harsher on myself than you would think.

I think there would probably be a certification for writing C, one for writing Rust, etc.

So I would not be allowed to program as a certified engineer for Rust, but I could probably be certified in C, even though the certification and standard of care for C would be much harder and have a higher bar, for obvious reasons.

I don't know what the industry would set the standard of care for C at, but I personally wouldn't set it lower than my personal standards. If it was set at that, then my license should not be taken away, even if I were paid to work on `bc`.

But if it was set higher, say at the level given to libcurl or SQLite, then yes, I should lose my license if I were working for pay on `bc`, unless I stepped up.

In addition, if I worked on `bc` for pay, my failure to prevent memory bugs in `bcl` recently (the one where Valgrind was not hooked into its tests properly) should, at the very least, put me in front of a licensure board to explain myself. My recent failure to prevent the double-free on `SIGINT` when running expressions should also put me in front of a licensure board to explain myself.

If any paying user had been caused trouble for those bugs (no one ran into them as far as I know), I should have to compensate them for the trouble and probably lose my license for negligence. I was extremely upset that I let those slip through.

So no, I shouldn't lose my license for using C, but there should be one for C, and I should have at least come close to losing it for the recent mistakes that I would consider near-negligence.

> And I do realize that would probably be a disastrous idea in practice. But in my mind it's great.

I want to hear why it might be a disastrous idea. I can't see how it would be because it would lead to less but better quality software, and if bad software actually costs more in the long run, it would actually save the industry money! So I fail to see how it would be disastrous.

Please enlighten me on this; I have to know the weaknesses.

> And while I do agree that the industry grew too fast for its own good, this is unfortunately the reality we live in. The need for software has exceeded both our ability to produce it reliably and our capacity for training qualified engineers. So we have countless junior developers writing production code without good mentors.

Yes, this is the reality. This is why I don't dismiss Rust even though I hate it.

> And worse, I think we also have a terrifying number of "senior" engineers who are actually junior engineers with a lot of experience but trapped in a local maximum.

I really don't want you to be right, but I think you are, and that terrifies me because something bad is going to happen. I don't know how we fix this.

However, the end result of that bad thing might actually be certification and standard of care, which wouldn't be a bad thing.

As they say, regulations are written in blood, and I think that's the only way to fix this.

It's just too bad that people will have to die before that happens. I mean, I thought the Boeing 737 MAX would be the wake-up call, but it wasn't. Sigh...

> I "get" async/await but I… hate that it has to exist. I avoid it in all of my Rust projects. Partly because I don't want to use it, but also because I've never needed to solve a problem in a domain where it would have been invaluable. So just so you know, I've been writing Rust since right around 1.0 and I've been essentially able to just pretend it doesn't exist. I've never used it, but also I've never had to think about not using it if that makes sense.

That makes a lot of sense, and I don't blame you.

It's too bad we had a misunderstanding at the beginning of our conversations about this because I think we would agree more than disagree on the direction the industry would go. Oh well; we got to a point where we cleared up the misunderstanding.

Thank you.

[stouset]

> I want to hear why it might be a disastrous idea. I can't see how it would be because it would lead to less but better quality software, and if bad software actually costs more in the long run, it would actually save the industry money! So I fail to see how it would be disastrous.

My answer to this is probably too large for a reply here, but TL;DR is that software engineering is an enormous, complex field. I do know that there are far more ways to do something like this wrong than there are ways to do it right, but I have no idea what would be the right way. Language-based licensing makes sense, but so does licensing for sub-fields like security-related areas (handling PII, cryptography, even different areas of cryptography), operating systems (Windows, macOS, Linux, *BSD, et al), and large frameworks (Hibernate, Rails, React, etc.). But I imagine in practice things would get real murky real quick.

And it's also something where it could easily become too onerous and impossible to develop software.