I am fairly tired of Rust devs and boosters monopolizing online spaces. There was a Zig article the other day with comments that derailed into Reasons For The Rust Way. IMHO this behavior is not helpful for PL experimentation and adoption.

I'm admittedly a Rust booster (in the sense that I like it) and so perhaps I'm biased, but: I don't really see Rust monopolizing spaces that don't otherwise make sense?

HN has a pre-existing bias towards the newest and shiniest thing, so it's not surprising that Rust takes up a lot of the oxygen in PL conversations (especially when so many of its peers, like Zig, emphasize having fewer deviations as an advantage.) But I don't see Rust taking up a disproportionate amount of headspace in more focused technical communities.

It's not just discussions about programming languages. All kinds of HN posts about security vulnerabilities commonly get sidetracked by very predictable "if only it would be written in Rust" threads.

I guess I don't understand how that qualifies as "sidetracking." If the vulnerability in question is a spatial or temporal memory safety bug, it seems very reasonable and pertinent to observe that Rust would have prevented it.

Unless it's the volume or consistency of that reply that you're objecting to?

Yeah but does it make sense to suggest to rewrite software that are years old, have collected solutions for years and know how? Maybe rust devs could end wishing that things were written in rust and start writing things in rust

> Maybe rust devs could end wishing that things were written in rust and start writing things in rust

They are, though. Like, I don't even disagree with the cost of rewriting, but there are very much active efforts to rewrite things in rust (ex. coreutils - https://github.com/uutils/coreutils , OS - https://www.redox-os.org/ ) or to add rust to existing projects (Linux, Firefox and Chrome both (https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/refs/heads/...)).

This is just completely moving the goal posts. This thread was talking about observing that a particular vulnerability would be prevented in Rust. But now you've taken it from that, to, "why not rewrite the project in Rust."

They are not the same thing.

> start writing things in rust

Yeah because nobody is writing anything in Rust. What a bunch of blowhards!

Then people complain that projects advertise themselves as being written in Rust.

I think this is fair. On the other hand, I think the flimsy arguments ("Just write better code..." and "Modern C++ doesn't have these issues..."), the mole hill matters of taste ("Egads! The syntax!" not "I think Swift does this better for the following reason..."), and the drive by hype hate, are just as tiresome from the anti-Rust crowd.

It’s when technology becomes a cult and not a tool to solve a problem, I have no interest in having a rust mentality I have an interest in having a $businessLogicSolving mentality, and some aren’t capable of understanding it, sadly

Breaking news! Some humans lose sight of the big picture!

Tune in tomorrow where we reveal that water is, to the shock of everyone, wet.

The irony is that the real big picture here is that Rust's entire purpose of being is absolutely about $businessLogicSolving. There's a real problem where software written in C or C++ for $goodReasons seems to always wind up with large numbers of security vulnerabilities caused by memory safety bugs. That's bad for business. That's basically why Rust exists.