> More like an activist than ... well ... a normal well-adjusted person.
What then am I an activist for exactly? Rust for Linux and better package managers? If you think "activism" is my aim after reading my comment, I think you missed my point.
The point is -- I can't stand Drew's writing. And the reason why is not because he expresses strong opinions which I don't share, it's because -- Drew doesn't ever consider the possibility he's wrong. Even as a nodding feint to the reader that acknowledges intellectual humility is something we all expect. So, I will accept, in that limited space, I'm an activist. I am an activist for Drew writing better.
Do you really need another example of Drew's lack of intellectual curiosity? Well...
One might read Drew's "Rust is not a good C replacement"[0], and think wait a minute, Drew does actually collect some evidence there that Rust is adopting more features per year than C, Go or even C++. Yes, I'll admit Drew occasionally collects the worst evidence to make bad points.
Drew concludes: "[This prevalence of features] speaks volumes to the stability of these languages, but more importantly it speaks to their complexity. Over time it rapidly becomes difficult for one to keep an up-to-date mental map of Rust and how to solve your problems idiomatically." And this conclusion might be a reasonable inference to draw after one has worked with Rust over a year or so, and one can provide some examples of certain redundant or complex behavior, but Drew doesn't do that. He takes some information, which could be relevant, provides it out of any context, and simply moves on.
I'd note there is still no evidence Drew has ever even tried Rust in any of Drew's writing. He just doesn't like it from afar!
Or perhaps Drew could have provided an example of a feature that wasn't a good feature from the year of this blog entry (2019)? No, that might have required him to wrestle with his point a little, and that would be hard! As Drew says, "My approach wasn’t very scientific, but I’m sure the point comes across", failing to understand his superficial approach is exactly the problem with his writing, and this point.
His bullets in support are similarly facile. As Drew says: "C has a spec. No spec means there’s nothing keeping rustc honest. Any behavior it exhibits could change tomorrow." Left unremarked upon by Drew is how much of C's spec leaves C's behavior undefined, compared to the implementation defined behavior Rust, because that wouldn't serve to celebrate C and flog Rust. So we don't get the ordinary hemming and hawing one often sees in good writing ("It could be like this, but I think it's more like this..."). Instead, we get black and white. Heroes and villains.
Haha, maybe.
> More like an activist than ... well ... a normal well-adjusted person.
What then am I an activist for exactly? Rust for Linux and better package managers? If you think "activism" is my aim after reading my comment, I think you missed my point.
The point is -- I can't stand Drew's writing. And the reason why is not because he expresses strong opinions which I don't share, it's because -- Drew doesn't ever consider the possibility he's wrong. Even as a nodding feint to the reader that acknowledges intellectual humility is something we all expect. So, I will accept, in that limited space, I'm an activist. I am an activist for Drew writing better.
Do you really need another example of Drew's lack of intellectual curiosity? Well...
One might read Drew's "Rust is not a good C replacement"[0], and think wait a minute, Drew does actually collect some evidence there that Rust is adopting more features per year than C, Go or even C++. Yes, I'll admit Drew occasionally collects the worst evidence to make bad points.
Drew concludes: "[This prevalence of features] speaks volumes to the stability of these languages, but more importantly it speaks to their complexity. Over time it rapidly becomes difficult for one to keep an up-to-date mental map of Rust and how to solve your problems idiomatically." And this conclusion might be a reasonable inference to draw after one has worked with Rust over a year or so, and one can provide some examples of certain redundant or complex behavior, but Drew doesn't do that. He takes some information, which could be relevant, provides it out of any context, and simply moves on.
I'd note there is still no evidence Drew has ever even tried Rust in any of Drew's writing. He just doesn't like it from afar!
Or perhaps Drew could have provided an example of a feature that wasn't a good feature from the year of this blog entry (2019)? No, that might have required him to wrestle with his point a little, and that would be hard! As Drew says, "My approach wasn’t very scientific, but I’m sure the point comes across", failing to understand his superficial approach is exactly the problem with his writing, and this point.
His bullets in support are similarly facile. As Drew says: "C has a spec. No spec means there’s nothing keeping rustc honest. Any behavior it exhibits could change tomorrow." Left unremarked upon by Drew is how much of C's spec leaves C's behavior undefined, compared to the implementation defined behavior Rust, because that wouldn't serve to celebrate C and flog Rust. So we don't get the ordinary hemming and hawing one often sees in good writing ("It could be like this, but I think it's more like this..."). Instead, we get black and white. Heroes and villains.
[0]: https://drewdevault.com/2019/03/25/Rust-is-not-a-good-C-repl...