FieryMechanic

> You are kind of ranting on general trends here, not to mention misrepresenting what I said which I cannot see as arguing in good faith (never said that big companies using something makes it good; I said that they did studies -- that's absolutely very much not the same as many other types of cargo culting that they do which I'll agree is never credible).

I didn't misrepresent anything you said. You misunderstood what I said. I said companies will claim all sorts of things and the reality behind the scenes is very different. Having a study is one form of making claims. What works at one company may not work at another.

> I am not pretending to not understanding anything as well by the way,

Yes you were. What I said was plainly obvious.

CV driven development is a well known and understood phenomenon.

Technology stacks being subverted is a well known and understood phenomenon.

It is very annoying when people pretend not to understand basic idioms. It is a dishonest tactic employed by people online, I've been online now since the late 90s and have seen it done many times. You are not the first and won't be the last.

> I was trying to find objective technical disagreements and still can't find any in your reply.

I gave you them. Several in fact.

Part of engineering is understanding that resources aren't infinite and you have to make trade offs. So how resources (money, time, man power, compute) is used is technical. I make calls all the time on whether something is worth doing based on the amount of time I have.

This is often discussed on many blogs, podcast and books about software engineering.

What you want to do is narrow discussion down to the sort of discussion "well they found they found X more bugs using Y technique". Ignoring the fact that they may had to spend a huge amount of man power to rebuild everything and created many more bugs in the process.

> I am seeing a bit of curmudgeon-ing on several places though, so I am bowing out.

Yes I am disillusioned with the industry after working in it for 20 years. That doesn't invalidate what I say.

> I don't _hate_ them or anything. They are super solid tools and I have derived a lot of value out of them in a previous life. But they leave a lot of room for overly clever humans to abuse them and make life hard for the next guy. Which is exactly how I was exposed to them, dozens of times.

I don't understand why many people on here say "humans", instead of people. It sounds like you are talking as if you are a grey alien on a space ship somewhere.

What you are complaining about is abuse of tools/language features. This can happen in any language and/or tools.

That doesn't mean the tool itself is bad.

> Help me understand the actual technical criticism buried in the "worm its way everywhere", please. And in the "it's good for CV/Resume padding" statement as well.

They are self explanatory. I don't like it when someone does this stupid game of not understanding common idioms.

> It's a strange thing to say and it smells like a personal vendetta which is weirdly common on HN about Rust and to this day I have no idea why even though I have asked many people directly.

It isn't. What typically happens is that a tool lets call it "Y" get used everywhere to the point where you cannot use "X" without "Y".

Ruby used to get used for CV padding. I used to work in a Windows/.NET shop and someone wrote a whole service using Ruby on Rails in a Suse Linux. That person left and got a job doing Rails shortly after.

> Rust has objective technical merits and many smart devs have documented those in their blogs -- journeys on rewrites or green-field projects, databases, network tools (like OP), and even others. Big companies do studies and prove less memory safety bugs over the course of months or years of tests.

Just because <large company> does something and says something is true doesn't mean it is or is suitable for everyone or it is actually true.

I have worked at many <large corps> as a contractor and found that the reality presented to the outside world is very different to what is actually happening in the building.

e.g.

I was working at a large org that rewrote significant portions of their code-base in new language instead of simply migrating their existing code-base to a new runtime.

I made plenty of money as a contractor, but it was a waste resources and the org lost money for 3 years as a result.

BTW they never fully transitioned over to the new code-base.

Company blogs and press releases will say it was a success. I know for a fact it wasn't.

> The Linux kernel devs (not unanimously) have agreed that Rust should no longer have experimental status there recently -- and people are starting to write Linux drivers in Rust and they work.

So I will need any additional toolchain to build Linux drivers. This is what is meant by "worming its way in". I have done a LFS build and it takes a long time to get everything built as it is.

> I am honestly not sure what would satisfy the people who seem to hate Rust so passionately. I guess it announcing full disband and a public apology that it ever existed? Yes this is a bit of a sarcastic question but really, I can't seem to find a place on the internet where people peacefully discuss this particular topic.

You are making assumptions that I hate Rust. I don't. I just don't care for it.

What I do hate is hype and this constant cycle of the IT industry deciding that everything has to be rewritten again in <new thing> because it is trendy. I have personally been through it many times now, both as an end user and as a developer making the transition to the <new thing>.

A lot of the modern tooling feels like a rube goldberg machine when it goes wrong. If you are forced (like I am) because of byzantine corporate rules to use older version of said tools, it is extremely painful. Don't get me started on stuff like babel, jest, ts-jest and all that gubbings. AI been a godsend because I can ask Claude what I want to do.

I use vendor directory in my C++ project and and git submodules and I've got a build that works cross platform. The biggest issue I ran into was MinGW and GCC implement the FileSystem library differently (I don't know why). It wasn't too difficult to fix.

> RE: NPM, you have a right to a preference of course. I certainly don't miss the times 20 years ago when pulling in a library into a C++ project was a two-week project in itself. make and CMake work perfect right up until they don't and the last 2% cost you 98% of the time. Strategically speaking, using make/CMake is simply unjustified risk. But this is of course always written off as "skill issue!" which I gave up arguing against because the arguers apparently have never hit the dark corners. I have. I am better with Just and Cargo. And Elixir's mix / hex.

I've lost countless hours having to get the rube goldberg machine of npm, jest, typescript, ts-jest and other things to work together. In contrast when I was learning OpenGL/Vulkan and general 3d programming, I decided to bite the bullet and just do C++ from the start as that was what all the books/examples were in. I had been told by countless people how hard it all was and how terrible the build systems were. I don't agree, I think the JS ecosystem is far worse than make and CMake. Now I am already an experienced programmer that already knew C# and Java, maybe that helped as they have many of the same concepts as C++.

Now I did buy and read a book on CMake and I did read the C++ 11 book by Bjarne Stroustrup (I found it second hand on ebay I think).

> What you like as a language (or syntax) and what you roll your eyes at are obviously not technological or merit-based arguments.

They aren't. What I am trying to convey is that it feels like a lot of things are done because it is the new shiny thing and it is good for resume/CV padding.

> "Weird" I can't quite place as an argument either.

The return keyword is optional IIRC in some circumstances. I think that is weird. I think I stopped there because I just wasn't enjoying learning it and there are zero jobs in my area of it.

> Use what you like. We all do the same.

The issue is that I think it (Rust) is going to worm it way everywhere and I will be forced to deal with it.

> That doesn't matter. Of course you can keep writing your C/C++ or using CMake, nobody is going to stop that.

What it is going to cause is having to learn a bunch of new tooling which I have to somehow to get behaving on my Debian box, because a particular tool that I will need to compile from source will have a bunch of Rust dependencies.

I've already run into this BTW, where I wanted to compile something in Rust and it needed a third party task runner called "just". So I then needed to work out how to install/compile "just" to follow the build instructions.

Why they needed yet another task runner, when I am pretty sure make would have been fine, is beyond me.

> But other people's project are not going to stop adopt new tech stack because how you feel about it.

I don't expect them to. That doesn't mean I can't comment on the matter.

The issue you are describing isn't an problem with C/C++ tooling. It is to do with how the developer dealt with dependencies i.e. poorly. BTW this happens in any language if they do that. I've had to deal with some awful C# code bases that would only compile on one guys machine.

I am a hobbyist C/C++ developer and have a intermediate size code base that builds on Linux, Windows (MinGW and MSVC) and MacOS and I didn't do anything particularly special. What I did do is setup CI early on in my project. So I had to fix any issues as I went along.

Rewriting stuff is largly a waste of time unless the underlying design/product is flawed. You are going to have to solve the same challenges as before but this time in Rust.

Anyone that been on a "rewrite" knows that often the end result will look like the previous implementation but in <new thing>.

So what I see is a lot of development effort to re-solve problems that have already been solved. I think Ubuntu did this with the core-utils recently (I don't keep up with the Linux dramas as there is a new one every week and tbh it isn't interesting a lot of the time). They ended up causing bunch of issues that I believe were already fixed years ago.

There are issues with things in Linux land that have been issues for years and haven't been resolved and I feel that development effort would have probably been better spent there. I don't pay canonical employees though, so I guess I don't get to decide.

I didn't like Rust one bit and gave up learning it. Go on the other hand is quite nice.

Go been around for quite a while now. It isn't going anywhere.

The issue is that every other week there is a rewrite of something in Rust. I just do an eyeroll whenever I see that yet another thing is being rewritten in Rust.

I've tried compiling large projects in Rust in a VM (8GB) and I've run out of memory whereas I am sure a C/C++ large project of a similar size wouldn't run out of memory. A lot of this tooling I had to compile myself because it wasn't available for my Linux distro (Debian 12 at the time).

A lot of the tooling reminds me of NPM, and after spending a huge amount of my time fighting with NPM, I actually prefer the way C/C++/CMake handles stuff.

I also don't like the language. I do personal stuff in C++ and I found Rust really irritating when learning the language (the return rules are weird) and just gave up with it.

I would say until you are about level 60 there are a bunch of mechanics that you won't understand.

> Like any multiplayer game, it can expand to fill whatever amount of time you want to dedicate to it, and there's always something new to learn or try.

Generally at this point I normally do runs where I go full like gas, stun or full fire builds.

When I used to build these scrapers for people, I would usually pretend to be a browser. This normally meant changing the UA and making the headers look like a read browser. Obviously more advanced techniques of bot detection technique would fail.

Failing that I would use Chrome / Phantom JS or similar to browse the page in a real headless browser.

I was collecting UK bank account sort code numbers (to a buy a database at the time costs a huge amount of money). I had spent a bunch of time using asyncio to speed up scraping and wondered why it was going so slow, I had left Fiddler profiling in the background.

The way most scrapers work (I've written plenty of them) is that you just basically get the page and all the links and just drill down.

> Well, yes. I did say something to that effect. Blaming BSODs on invasive anti-cheat out of principle is a political position, not a scientific one.

When there are actual valid concerns about the anti-cheat, these will be ignored because of people that assigned blame to it when unwarranted. This is why making statements based on your ideology can be problematic.

> I understand what you're saying here, but anyone who does a substantial amount of systems programming could tell you that hardware-dependent behavior is evidence for a hardware problem, but does not necessarily rule out a software bug that only manifests on certain hardware. For example, newer hardware could expose a data race because one path is much faster. Alternatively, a subroutine implemented with new instructions could be incorrect.

People were claiming it was causing hardware damage which is extremely unlikely since both Intel, AMD and most hardware manufacturers have mechanisms which prevent this. This isn't some sort of opaque race condition.

> RI would presume the culprit is kernel anti-cheat until presented strong evidence to the contrary.

You should know that if you making assumptions without evidence that will often lead you astray.

I don't like kernel anti-cheat and would prefer for it not to exist, but making stupid statements based on ideology instead of evidence just makes you look silly.