Rust

If moving to another language erases 15 years of experience, you probably don't have a good grasp on the fundamentals...

What the hell is going on with the kerning in that screenshot? My eyes, they bleed.

This really implies a level of competence and understanding among the highest levels of management that I think we all know just isn't there.

Anti-Rust crusaders: "C is easy actually and Rust is pointlessly annoying and hard to learn"

Also anti-Rust crusaders:

@onlinepersona the master plan to remove old senior devs is ... to train new senior devs.

@onlinepersona ah, the time-honored tradition of The Big Rewrite 'cause it's cheap. Where do people get these horseshit ideas?

Rust is a conspiracy to bring down wages! Rust is a conspiracy to replace GPL with MIT to gain control of Linux! Rust is a conspiracy to impregnate your dog!

The US government recommending memory safe languages has really given people worms in their heads

This whole circumstance just reminds me of COBOL. Nowadays you have scant few programmers for it, but the ones who do demand a big salary because it's such old specialized technology and often they have decades of experience in it. There's simply less COBOL programmers than there were in the languages heyday, and the ones trying to enter that market nowadays have a huge learning curve ahead of them.

The only reason most of these places that do that though, is because they wrote in COBOL to begin with decades ago, and didn't want to switch away to something more modern as other languages gained functionality and popularity.

I doubt C is ever going to go the way that COBOL has, it's too ubiquitous, but it does make one consider the language you write in and how compatible it may be not just with what exists today but what's going to exist years from the creation of that code.

This is triggering me really good. Especially the part about seniors competing with juniors. Has this person ever met .... people?

Wait, so saving a ton of money by using a language that reduces production bugs is now a bad thing?

I'm a senior sw engineer, and I don't get paid because I know the vagueries of whatever language we're using, I get paid because I can lead a team that solves problems. I don't really care what the language is, but I do care that it's relatively easy to on-board someone in case we have turnover or something.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather be highly paid because I'm able to be really productive instead of highly paid because I'm literally the only shot the company has of fixing the bug.

I seriously doubt changing language would impact a senior that much...

Bruh. Just put Rust on your resume. It's not like they'll actually check and you can still Google everything.

This is such an incredible self-own.

Either:

• C++ is such a horrific language and Rust is so vastly superior that a person with 6 months of experience in Rust can be as productive and valuable as someone with 30 years of experience in C++.

• The person writing the post, and according to them C++ programmers in general, bring virtually nothing to the table other than knowing the syntax and semantics of C++, even after 30 years of programming.

is this the programmers' version of "Dey took 'er jerbs!! Durka der!!"

Here's a shocking (/s) observation: it's about different things for different people.

For seniors like the author, it may be about companies trying to replace them with cheaper professionals. For companies, it may be about renewing the workforce. For product owners / tech leads, it could be about the opportunity of using a rewrite to pick a stack that better aligns with the problems they're trying to solve. For regulators it may be about its safety features and eliminating entire categories of common issues. For juniors, it may be about choosing a language they actually like working with.

This is so fucking stupid, I can't even.

For your mental health, have some reasonable arguments about Rust: https://www.heise.de/hintergrund/Entwicklung-Warum-Rust-die-Antwort-auf-miese-Software-und-Programmierfehler-ist-4879795.html

Since it's in German, here are the key points of the article (written from memory - the article is quite old, so I might misremember - best read the article yourself):

• Software development is stuck in a vicious cycle regarding project budgets.
  • Some competitors don't know better and just budget the "happy path", that assumes that everything during development goes right.
    • The author uses a term for this which I like a lot: "Hybris of the programmer"
  • Other competitors know better, but still have to lie in order to remain competitive when it comes to prices
  • Therefore almost all software projects end up with a way too low budget
    • So we get buggy software
• Rust might be a way out of this misery, because
  • it is understood that it takes longer to develop something with Rust
  • but on the flip-side the safety-guarantees rule out a lot of bugs
  • so customers who choose to have their project implemented using Rust are fully aware of the higher costs, but also the higher quality
  • and developers have a well known argument for the higher costs, and also have data that shows how this higher investment will yield a better quality product.

Now you C++ fuckers know how I felt when you introduced C++ and devalued my COBOL skillset

https://www.softpost.org/rust/difference-between-rust-and-c

So, this "senior developer" is .. braindead & still allowed to be working, then?

_ /\ _

I'll take salty C++ masochist for 5

The US government spending tens of millions of dollars funneling every student into STEM for the last 20 years was absolutely a coordinated attempt to drive down the cost of that labor.

I'm almost 22 and I have six years of intensive Rust usage, confirmed by many projects and contributions on Github. Switching to Rust was the best decision I ever made, because this post is partly true