Re:Microsoft: Rust Is the Industry’s ‘Best Chance’ at Safe S...
by JoshTriplett on Saturday June 13, 2020 @06:25PM
(#23513353)
I've seen (and participated in) useful, productive discussions about core aspects of Rust; occasionally such things can even be improved. It takes a lot of care to have a productive discussion on such things, but it can absolutely happen.
Re:Microsoft: Rust Is the Industry’s ‘Best Chance’ at Safe S...
by ZeikJT on Sunday June 14, 2020 @01:00PM
(#23519292)
Constructive doesn't mean actionable. Not sure where that assumption comes from. It may be that only future languages can reap the rewards of a discussion on core features that are unlikely to change in rust but that's still possibly valid constructive criticism.
The thing about constructive criticism, when it comes to something like programming language design, is that its usefulness varies inversely with the importance of its aim.
Core features of the language are highly important (obviously) but criticizing them is not very useful since they're highly unlikely to change. Thus, only the most peripheral and superficial parts (as well as new additions) are subject to valid, constructive criticism.
People who have criticism for (or are otherwise skeptical of) the core parts of Rust are not being constructive, then, and so these fights can break out.