[pdimitar]

Maybe it's you and some other curmudgeons projecting -- worth to consider if that's the case.

Maybe it's normal for people to praise something that legitimately solved their problems. I know that happened with me.

[glass-z13]

There is a difference between praising and preaching, the latter happens more often with rust

[pdimitar]

If you say so. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

But even if it was true (I'd contest it's not) can't you ignore it and judge the language on its merits? We are not teenagers for a long, long time now, we should be making up our own mind about things.

[nottorp]

> we should be making up our own mind about things

But you denied my right to make up my own mind about Rust based on what its proponents say.

I believe you even attempted to insult me, too bad I don't know what curmudgeon means :)

[pdimitar]

I have not done either. "Curmudgeon" is a "get off my lawn, kids!" grandpa btw. :)

I have not denied you anything, I implored you to ignore the zealots that exist IN EVERY ECOSYSTEM and judge the thing based on what it can actually do.

Please don't misrepresent what I said, that's not arguing in good faith.

[nottorp]

Heh, this grandpa has written like 3x more python than C this year. And the C part was no choice - that was all I had on these devices.

Edit: from what I hear from my peers (translation: other programmers that I have coffee or drinks with), if I started a new server application today and I needed the performance of a compiled language, I should use Go not Rust.

I believe servers are where the propensity of C like languages to allow you to shoot yourself in the foot is the problem, isn't it?

[pdimitar]

Servers and many CLI tools, yes. Buffer overflows and memory unsafety are really easy to allow there for everyone but absolutely Godlike C/C++ devs.

Golang, Rust, Nim, Zig, and a few others are a much better fit nowadays.

[nottorp]

Before the current "AI" hysteria, HN was full of "I've rewritten this thing that was working just fine in Rust". No mention of how it's better, has more features - or even has all the original's features - or anything about why you should use the rewrite instead of the original.

Am I supposed to use a tool just because of what it's made of, or because it solves a problem for me?

[pdimitar]

> No mention of how it's better

No embarrassing buffer overflow CVEs is a very good start.

To me that's an actual selling point and I've migrated from almost all UNIX coreutils to Rust alternatives for that reason alone.

> Am I supposed to use a tool just because of what it's made of, or because it solves a problem for me?

No, as an adult you are supposed to not frame the discussion unfairly and ask the right questions.

[nottorp]

The right questions according to who?

Are your coreutils replacements 100% drop-in?

[pdimitar]

I don't need a 100% drop-in. Barely anyone does. I've observed at least 80% of all of the coreutils features are not used by 90% - 99% of programmers and sysadmins.

Ask people if they used all flags of `sort` and report back results as a test of my hypothesis.

> The right questions according to who?

This is tiring. I told you twice that I'd prefer you engaging in technical merits. You keep drawing attention to what is annoying you but you'll have to talk to your friends and family about that because I am not interested.

Bye.

[AnimalMuppet]

I don't see many CVEs in coreutils. Maybe one or two, in several decades? I do on occasion use obscure flags (or at least ones that are obscure to me).

> This is tiring.

Hey, you're the one keeping the argument going...

[nottorp]

But the only "technical merit" seems to be "omg it's more secure". I've literally never seen any other argument in favor of Rust.