[optymizer]

That's not training. That's being thrown in the lake to learn how to swim.

Now you're measuring how many people drowned, and you're saying "let's enforce that everyone use a flotation device, and there will be fewer deaths".

Sure, but there will also be fewer actual swimmers.

To make this more concrete, you can't look at something in aggregate and say "well, we are having this one type of issue, let's just throw everything away and start over".

Yes we must do something, I just don't think that Rust is the best answer. Maybe have an actual safety training. The language is hard. Write a compiler for it, study the spec, simplify the spec, upgrade the language, etc.

[1ris]

"Training" and "being the (allergy) the most skilled" have no connection to you? You can't be serious.

This is mincing words and a bad-faith argument. I consider this discussion pointless and will not continue.

[optymizer]

Just because you didn't understand my argument doesn't make it in bad faith.

If working on the Linux kernel is the training then you're measuring incidents that occur _during training_.

The whole point of training is to practice and make mistakes _before_ the actual work. Once they're considered experts, you can measure the knife cuts in their work.

[yazaddaruvala]

Have you taken the time to learn and use Rust?

Some of the first software I ever wrote was C and then C++. I’ve since worked on Billion+ line Java code bases. I’ve also worked professionally in python, ruby, Type/JavaScript.

When I picked up Rust 15 years into writing software, it taught me to write better code.

Let me repeat that: even after extensive training and professional use of other languages, rustc the compiler taught me to write better code.

If you’re looking for a “we should train people better to not make mistakes” you want people to learn software development from rustc. That training is very transferable back to C and C++ and even Java. Could this automated “teacher” be better? Sure. Could it be less strict? In certain cases sure. Is it the best training program we have? This best I’ve ever seen.

I highly recommend you at least try it! :)

[1ris]

I understand your argument. It works with starting from a massive misrepresentation of what I have said (aka bad faith). Your argument is fatally flawed due to the reason i stated. And that's why there is nothing to be said to the substance, other than what was written and this discussion was and remains over.

[optymizer]

> It works with starting from a massive misrepresentation of what I have said

It does not misrepresent what you said, and failure to see that means you did not actually understand it

> Your argument is fatally flawed due to the reason i stated

This is then false as well, and my argument stands.

> this discussion was and remains over

It's good to agree

[1ris]

>It does not misrepresent what you said, and failure to see that means you did not actually understand it

Oh yes, I do. I do know what i mean and I can see that your quote of it was either extremely unintelligent, something you can by definition not see, or intentionally miss representing and therefore bad faith and therefore something you by definition lie about.

I'm heavily leaning to bad faith, because you never make any attempts to refute arguments anywhere in the whole thread.

So, of course, I'm obviously correct on on this one, so it's good thing either of us wasted any time talking on the substance.