>Those who agree point to LoF as embodying an enigmatic "mathematics of consciousness", its algebraic symbolism capturing an (perhaps even "the") implicit root of cognition
I believe if you learn to love and enjoy the most mundane tasks like sweeping the floor, washing your hands, walking to the mailbox, etc, and appreciate the opportunity they provide you to recognize the eternal present and all its glory, everything else will fall into place.
I disagree, I think UI programming is inherently quite simple. Especially with a paradigm like immediate-mode GUIs in my opinion. I believe the complexity comes from the fact that the DOM is a poor API for creating user interfaces, which ultimately inspired developers to create frameworks that work in a more “immediate-mode” style way.
I think the problem initially was that people accused the creator of malice for no reason other than not being more specific about which features were a work in progress. I agree that it's not good to treat every criticism as an attack, but sometimes criticism of V (as an outsider, I've never used it) feels more like anger towards the creator rather than a helpful suggestion. For example, there's a difference between saying "I've found a bug in an advertised feature" and "You're a liar", which is how much of V's critics sound to me.
Great job with the language. I’ve always found the controversy quite interesting. You know you’re doing something right when everyone attacks you. How did you get GitHub to support V just one month after release?
Totally agree. Not sure when downloading millions of lines of random code from the internet and executing it with essentially full permissions became a programmer virtue.
It hasn’t. Rust is 12 years old, has no specification, incomplete documentation, a borrow checker that won’t allow some valid code today but may allow that same code tomorrow, and a level of complexity that is seriously next level. It’s about as calm as C++ on cocaine in my opinion.
I expect that Rust will kind of fork, like Python 2.x vs 3.x (remember that?). We'll have "stable Linux rust" and "move-fast-and-break-things meme Rust". Those of us who value stability will say "Thank you Linus Torvalds" and just use the "Linux rust" for everything.
Could you give an example of a Rust release breaking existing compiling code? The Rust Project goes to great lengths to avoid this. For example, before every release they try to compile every open source Rust codebase with the release candidate compiler.
There have been a few. It often comes down to something that was previously unsound being made an error. There’s been long deprecation periods when this happens.
The fact that it’s hard to even remember that these things have happened is a testament to how rarely it happens and how well the breakage is handled.
Hey Steve, thanks for the response. I was struggling to remember, which is why I asked.
I suspect folks see the Rust release notes on the HN front page and assume that it must be a blockbuster release with lots of move-fast-break-things to make it there. But it’s actually like “new library API, some const fns, compilation time improvements”.
So then they think “this language is moving waaay too quickly, they need to do LTS versions”. But this is just speculation. That’s why I asked GP. Maybe they’ve actually experienced breakage.
