News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Next Step for Generics by munificent on Tuesday June 16, 2020 @05:58PM (#23544765)
It shouldn't be that surprising. Both are "low-level" languages that came onto the scene around the same time, are highly opinionated, but stake out very different points on the design space.

If you start talking about changing the recipe for Coca-Cola, surely Pepsi is going to enter the discussion at some point, right?

Re:The Next Step for Generics by geodel on Tuesday June 16, 2020 @10:51PM (#23547190)
Sorry. Either you are ignoring facts or you have not noticed at all. The point is if an article is about Rust it is quite unlikely that Go will appear in discussion but if it is Go discussion Rust will appear with almost 100% certainty.
Re:The Next Step for Generics by marcus_holmes on Wednesday June 17, 2020 @12:35AM (#23547830)
this. Every conversation about Go gets interrupted by a Rust fanboy saying "Rust does this better".

The HN comments on this article have been derailed from any interesting discussion about Generics in Go to an utterly pointless religious war about Rust and type systems.

Re:The Next Step for Generics by politician on Wednesday June 17, 2020 @01:34AM (#23548166)
It's gotten so bad that I wish @dang would start to intervene.
Re:The Next Step for Generics by geodel on Wednesday June 17, 2020 @12:28PM (#23553286)
In spirit I agree. But Rusk fans would claim 1) expression of opinion in non-abusive way. 2) Enlightening programers who are unaware of "better" way of doing things. And both activities are fine at least technically.
Re:The Next Step for Generics by marcus_holmes on Wednesday June 17, 2020 @02:24PM (#23554841)
I totally agree with both those things. But the Rust fan should realise:

1. This opinion gets expressed on every single comment thread about Go, multiple times. Maybe have some respect for other people's right to have a discussion on a subject without derailing it with a tangential opinion about another language.

2. We all know that Rust is the one true programming language for every possible context. However, because we're clearly idiots, we're writing a program in Go. Pointing out how Rust would do it better isn't helping.

Re:The Next Step for Generics by gver10 on Tuesday June 16, 2020 @06:05PM (#23544852)
This doesn't explain the obsession with Rust.

Fitting analogy: If there's an article about McDonald's, people would always talk about Wendy's instead. No one would mention BurgerKing (C++), Subway (D), KFC, ...

Re:The Next Step for Generics by viraptor on Tuesday June 16, 2020 @06:16PM (#23544969)
I see zig and d mentioned a lot on the rust/go posts about features and C++ on the posts about performance. It doesn't seem to be go/rust specific.
Re:The Next Step for Generics by libria on Tuesday June 16, 2020 @09:45PM (#23546775)
> BurgerKing (C++), Subway (D), KFC, ...

PHP must be Taco Bell. It solves a lot of problems quickly, but you'll pay for it later.

Re:The Next Step for Generics by munificent on Wednesday June 17, 2020 @12:20PM (#23553183)
The thing is, most discussions about Go are about adding features Rust has or making changes where Rust has something relevant to say.

I chose my analogy carefully. Coca-Cola tried to change its recipe to make it sweeter because they did studies and found people liked the taste of Pepsi more. So any discussion of changing Coke's flavor means Pepsi is highly relevant. But the converse is not necessarily true. Pepsi doesn't have any (recent) history of trying to match their flavor to Coke.

Maybe a better analogy is this: if Mercedes comes out with an electric car, you should expect to see Tesla in the discussions. But if Tesla comes out with a combustion engine, there's nothing particularly relevant about Mercedes in that discussion.

I'm sure that if there were discussions about adding structural typing or lightweight fibers to Rust, then Go would show up. But most of the discussions tend to be around adding generics or sum types to Go.

Re:The Next Step for Generics by nilkn on Wednesday June 17, 2020 @03:27AM (#23548783)
I wouldn’t say that I’m obsessed with Rust. However, it’s the sort of language I’ve wanted essentially since I started programming: a Haskell/OCaml-like language with the sheer performance and practicality of C++.

I’ve been a long-time user of Haskell, but I can safely say Rust has supplanted it almost entirely for me at this point. I never would have felt comfortable betting on Haskell in a commercial environment. Rust? Absolutely.

Re:The Next Step for Generics by hopia on Wednesday June 17, 2020 @08:56AM (#23550798)
Can you expand on why you would not bet on Haskell for commercial work? What are those things that make Rust suitable for it but not Haskell in your opinion?
Re:The Next Step for Generics by rhlsthrm on Wednesday June 17, 2020 @06:55AM (#23549983)
This is cool to hear. I've been interested in Haskell/OCaml to learn functional programming. Rust has other cool applications like WebAssembly too. I think I'll start learning it after I learn Clojure (trying to get into functional stuff first with Lisp).
Re:The Next Step for Generics by darksaints on Tuesday June 16, 2020 @08:15PM (#23546053)
Everybody that talks about rust is talking from a different perspective with different values. What makes rust different from other languages is the breadth of use cases for which rust is a candidate worth mentioning. That's not so much an obsession as it is an availability bias on your part. You're seeing different people talk about rust obsessively in different contexts and assuming that those same people talk about rust in all contexts.

If any of these features is of significant value to a programming use case, it is worth talking about rust:

* Speed

* Type safety

* Memory safety

* Memory determinism

* Latency

* RAII-based resource acquisition and destruction

* Concurrency correctness / safety

* Minimal runtime requirements

* Low level bit manipulation (eg. Cryptography, compression)

* Startup time

* Networking

This isn't exhaustive, but it gives a lot of different people in different domains working on different problems a reason to talk about the same language when comparing to their usual choices.

Re:The Next Step for Generics by athriren on Tuesday June 16, 2020 @08:50PM (#23546351)
I don’t know if this explains the entirety of the phenomenon but I do think this post helped me understand at least a portion of the pervasive mention of rust in almost any programming conversation on HN, which makes the fact that happens slightly less frustrating.
Re:The Next Step for Generics by marcus_holmes on Wednesday June 17, 2020 @12:37AM (#23547842)
yes, but the article is discussing Generics in Go. Nothing to do with Rust. Rust is absolutely NOT worth talking about in this context.
Re:The Next Step for Generics by darksaints on Wednesday June 17, 2020 @02:12AM (#23548315)
You do realize that the lack of generics in go pushed a lot of go programmers towards rust, right? This feature of go is long overdue, and many people gave up on trying to get them implemented. The fact that they are now available has many programmers wondering if it is even worth switching back.

That is context for discussion, and yes, it is relevant. Directly relevant, in fact.

Re:The Next Step for Generics by marcus_holmes on Wednesday June 17, 2020 @04:55AM (#23549297)
I get that. And that's a great discussion for the Rust community to have.

I wanted to hear what Go devs have to say about this latest iteration of the generics proposal. But to do that I have to wade through endless comments about type systems and Rust. Even on comments directly talking about this iteration and how to use it, every other reply starts with "In Rust..."

If implementing generics leads more of the Rust community back to Go, then from what I've seen here: no thanks. I have a feeling we'd see every conversation in every community forum start with "In Rust.."

Re:The Next Step for Generics by darksaints on Wednesday June 17, 2020 @11:19AM (#23552466)
> I get that. And that's a great discussion for the Rust community to have.

It's also a great discussion for the go community to have. The only problem here is that it's not a discussion you wanted to have. Should every discussion about go revolve around you and your wants?

If all you wanted was to hear what the go devs wanted to say, you could have clicked on the link and read it. Or could you possibly use the feature that was built for you: the [-] button to collapse a thread. Or maybe, just maybe, you could go to a place that is explicitly only about go, like /r/golang.

Re:The Next Step for Generics by marcus_holmes on Wednesday June 17, 2020 @02:16PM (#23554727)
I'd be totally cool if it was this once, and actually interested.

But it's every freaking time. Every single time Go is mentioned, there's a ton of Rust folk commenting on how Rust does it (better).

Just for once, it'd be nice to have a comment thread discussing a Go-specific item, that has nothing to do with Rust, without talking about Rust.

And yeah, /r/golang is at least Go-focused. But it has its own problems too. Mostly PHP and JS folks learning Go and asking basic questions (which would be great if they didn't then reply to the answers with "but that's not how PHP/JS does it, why does Go do it so strangely?" and without reading any of the billion answers for that question already).

Sorry if my exasperation is showing ;)

Re:The Next Step for Generics by geodel on Wednesday June 17, 2020 @12:38PM (#23553409)
No I do not realize that at all. It's like saying "Lot of Americans will renounced their citizenship if Trump won" Yes a lot of people said that but I am not sure if there is data to conclusively say it happened in either case.

The only cases I know of are people moved to Rust to avoid GC pauses.