It’s getting more and more unhinged on LinkedIn.
You must log in or register to comment.
If moving to another language erases 15 years of experience, you probably don’t have a good grasp on the fundamentals…
Perhaps the LinkedIn user should have considered learning “programming” instead of just C++
15 years is just about enough to understand how initializing a variable works in C++: https://randomcat.org/cpp-initialization/initialization.png
ey yo, wtf? is that a meme image?
no it’s real with references to the C++ standard (I think). they also have a big m4 macro(?) for generating the flowchart
C++ is a meme.
shh, Rust Is the New World Order
I seriously doubt changing language would impact a senior that much…
Rust is one of the harder languages for beginners to learn because of its borrow checker and strict ownership model, but it shouldn’t take more than a month or two for a competent senior to pick up.
It’s going to be deeply unpleasant and seem like a problem if:
- You’re writing dangerously bad C or C++ code already.
- You’ve only ever used Python or JavaScript.
- You try to shoehorn OOP and inheritance into it (Rust idioms are composition and functional programming).
- You refuse to use/learn pattern matching.
- You’re a pedant about “pretty” syntax.
If someone is at a senior level and any of those apply, they probably shouldn’t be at a senior level, though.
You’re a pedant about “pretty” syntax.
Oh I’m definitely whinging about it but it doesn’t make me stop using Rust. People coming from C or especially C++ don’t really have a leg to stand on, though, neither do people coming from ML. It’s Haskell people who get hit hardest.
You’re writing dangerously bad C or C++ code already.
Shots fired. Must be footgun that went off somewhere.
rust is leans more towards data oriented design than functional programming imo
Can confirm, I’m a senior and I didn’t have much trouble with Rust. After a couple weeks, I was writing useful code. After a month, I generally stopped cussing at the compiler.
I’m still finding odd surprises here and there, but it’s honestly no big deal. I’m about as productive in Rust as I am in Python, which I use at my day job, though I use them for very different domains.
Junior here. Rust was easy as fuck to learn, honestly. I just want a way out of junior hell with 4 YoE.
I’m still learning Rust coming from Python and R and honestly point 2 and 3 are not even that bad. Sure I have been bashing my head against some corners, and the lack of OOP was somewhat unexpected, but imho the language really helps you think about what you are doing.
the lack of OOP
Rust absolutely has OOP, that’s what Traits are for. It just doesn’t have classical inheritance, so you structure your patterns a bit differently.
That said, I lean more into functional-inspired style anyway, which tends to work pretty well w/ Rust.
traits aren’t oop. they’re closer to haskell’s typeclasses than anything else
At its core, OOP is just commingling data and operations, whereas FP is separating data from operations on data. I’m not an expert at Haskell (I cut my FP teeth on Lisp), but that’s essentially what typeclasses look like to me.
The Rust book has a section on OOP, and the main thing to remember is that Rust solves OOP through composition instead of inheritance. Rust doesn’t have inheritance in any meaningful way, but it can solve problems in a similar way as classical OOP.
i would strongly disagree with that characterization of both fp and oo. classifying rust as oo weakens it imo, and the fact that you can easily solve all the problems oo solves in rust, as your linked document shows, is not proof rust is oo, but rather that oo is unnecessary to solve those problems
object orientation is classes done wrong. typeclasses (and traits) are classes done right
Then how would you define OOP and FP?
Wikipedia claims it supports OOP:
Rust does not enforce a programming paradigm, but was influenced by ideas from functional programming, including immutability, higher-order functions, algebraic data types, and pattern matching. It also supports object-oriented programming via structs, enums, traits, and methods.
I wouldn’t say Rust is an OOP language though, because that absolutely gives the wrong impression since that evokes ideas of classical inheritance as in C++ or Java. But I do very much believe it supports object oriented programming as a paradigm, since you can model things with objects at the core.
That said, I think Rust is best used with less emphasis on OOP, since it’s pretty easy to get into trouble modeling things that way when it comes to lifetimes. I use OOP-style in Rust when it makes sense, and the rest is as close to functional as I can get it.
object orientation is classes done wrong
I think classical inheritance is object oriented programming done wrong. Go had the start of a good idea with composition and interfaces, and I think Rust’s traits + generics improved on it.
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.
Por que no los dos?
Sorry but you’re wrong. It’s both.
-
I’ll take salty C++ masochist for 5
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!
Hey, you sicko! Stay the hell away from my Linux!
Where’s that animooted sickos gif when I need it?
is this the programmers’ version of “Dey took 'er jerbs!! Durka der!!”
That’s precisely it.
https://www.softpost.org/rust/difference-between-rust-and-c
So, this “senior developer” is … braindead & still allowed to be working, then?
_ /\ _
@onlinepersona ah, the time-honored tradition of The Big Rewrite 'cause it’s cheap. Where do people get these horseshit ideas?
Probably from the same spot where they get the idea that languages literally designed within the first few decades of our profession are the pinnacle of technical excellence and can never be surpassed.
@onlinepersona the master plan to remove old senior devs is … to train new senior devs.
That’s a special kind of evil. A purer kind.
Anti-Rust crusaders: “C is easy actually and Rust is pointlessly annoying and hard to learn”
Also anti-Rust crusaders:
ancient amateur C coder here (not even c++). picked up python about 5 years ago (cuz why not?). been playing around with rust for a bit (like it so far). only issue is recoded tools getting released under mit license instead of gpl (cuz, get off my lawn!).
get with the times old man. nobody uses rust anymore, its already 10 years old and it takes soooooooooooo long to build. ur not gonna get anywhere unless u can l33tcode in rustscript these days. dinosaur
/s
great grandkids told be brainfuck is the future. are they right?!
nah, keep on, gpl is superior.
not even c++
You dodged a bullet. I much prefer writing in C to C++.
yeah. I took one look at c++ and gagged at what had been done to my beautifully tight, simple language. it just felt like such a bolt-on.
python fit neatly into a void. then came rust. that got me interested again.
Yep, agreed that the license change is an actual issue
Disclaimer: the damn screenshot just won’t load for me, so this is just a personal rant
Rust crusaders: it forces you to write good and safe code! This is superior to other languages!
Me: fucking fuck off, will ya. I need to become competent enough to write good and safe code (meaning think about problems before they happen), not some fucking kindergarten. Rust may be a good language, but the above argument sucks so very much
The screenshot is a conspiracy-laden ramble about how Rust is being introduced to lower the pay of systems-level SWEs by allowing companies to hire younger people, for the record.
Thank you, kind soul.
He. As if language is something that a dev doing systems-level architecture can’t pick up as the need arises. I did have a good laugh
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
- Some competitors don’t know better and just budget the “happy path”, that assumes that everything during development goes right.
- 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.
The first point applies to any kind of engineering anyway.
- Software development is stuck in a vicious cycle regarding project budgets.
What the hell is going on with the kerning in that screenshot? My eyes, they bleed.
Wh atd oyou mean?
Do we have a c/keming?
If not, please make one, I wanna subscribe
Linux is going on.
Yeah, wth is this? It’s so bad at points that it sometimes looks like two words.
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 really implies a level of competence and understanding among the highest levels of management that I think we all know just isn’t there.
The US government recommending memory safe languages has really given people worms in their heads
So RFK is now a software developer?
RFK is a C-nile
