The unicyclist on the left is saying the bicyclist is only riding a bike because they don’t have enough skill for a unicycle. The unicyclist on the right is saying they can’t learn to ride a bike because they’ve spent too much of their life riding a unicycle. It’s a dig at people who don’t want to switch to memory-safe languages like rust.
I am both the left guy and right guy. If you can’t program without using a memory safe language, it’s a skill issue. But I also don’t want to switch to rust because I like the challenge of manual memory management. (Also rust’s syntax and semantics looks like it was designed by a monkey attacking a typewriter.)
I write C++ professionally. Saying it’s a skill issue doesn’t solve the problem. If a dev with 15+ years of experience still isn’t writing memory-safe C++ (ie. some of the people I work with), they’re not going to learn now.
And if you’re a project manager and you choose to use C++ because your team says they like the challenge then you should be fired.
Yeah, Rust is simply the big one right now. It could just as easily apply to people in the 1960’s who didn’t want to adopt structured programming, or a compiler at all.
I personally prefer the memory safety tools offered by D over Rust. D also doesn’t come with const by default, and you can even opt out of the RAII stuff a certain graphics driver developer boasted about in the Linux developer mailings (RAII can be a bad for optimization).
Not if you opt in it. You can even put @safe: in the beginning of your D source code, then you’ll have a memory safe D (you have to opt out by using @trusted then @system).
Alright, I’ll actually dive into the research again…
Oh, I see, D is garbage collected, so really it’s more like Java or Python. Maybe that’s what I’m remembering. Also, @safe code sounds like it’s pretty limited - far more limited than non-unsafe Rust.
Basically, if a language had been Rust before Rust showed up, Rust would have been a non-event. They solved a problem that was legitimately open at the time.
Wat?
Sunk cost fallacy maybe?
Or Stockholm Syndrome
The unicyclist on the left is saying the bicyclist is only riding a bike because they don’t have enough skill for a unicycle. The unicyclist on the right is saying they can’t learn to ride a bike because they’ve spent too much of their life riding a unicycle. It’s a dig at people who don’t want to switch to memory-safe languages like rust.
I am both the left guy and right guy. If you can’t program without using a memory safe language, it’s a skill issue. But I also don’t want to switch to rust because I like the challenge of manual memory management. (Also rust’s syntax and semantics looks like it was designed by a monkey attacking a typewriter.)
I write C++ professionally. Saying it’s a skill issue doesn’t solve the problem. If a dev with 15+ years of experience still isn’t writing memory-safe C++ (ie. some of the people I work with), they’re not going to learn now.
And if you’re a project manager and you choose to use C++ because your team says they like the challenge then you should be fired.
Of course none of this applies to hobby projects…
Yeah, I’m not a model for good programing. I don’t program professionally, I just like challenging myself in my hobby projects.
I tried to learn assembly for that, but never did after all
Please tell me you just code golf or similar, and aren’t making things for people to actually use and maintain.
No, I don’t do anything professionally. I just enjoy challenging myself.
Now that’s a stretch, it could be anything (no, it couldn’t, although I think this may have application to some other pairs of languages)
I mean, that’s just my interpretation. I don’t think it’s a stretch though, switching to memory safe languages like rust has been pretty big recently.
How did you interpret the comic?
I should have added a ‘/s’, but I thought it is somewhat obvious, it really reminds of all the ‘git gud at C instead of doing Rust’
Yeah, hard to tell without the /s unfortunately.
Yeah, Rust is simply the big one right now. It could just as easily apply to people in the 1960’s who didn’t want to adopt structured programming, or a compiler at all.
I personally prefer the memory safety tools offered by D over Rust. D also doesn’t come with const by default, and you can even opt out of the RAII stuff a certain graphics driver developer boasted about in the Linux developer mailings (RAII can be a bad for optimization).
I feel like this has come up before, and D is not memory safe. It has some helper-type features, but at the end of the day it is still C-like.
Not if you opt in it. You can even put
@safe:in the beginning of your D source code, then you’ll have a memory safe D (you have to opt out by using@trustedthen@system).Alright, I’ll actually dive into the research again…
Oh, I see, D is garbage collected, so really it’s more like Java or Python. Maybe that’s what I’m remembering. Also,
@safecode sounds like it’s pretty limited - far more limited than non-unsafe Rust.Basically, if a language had been Rust before Rust showed up, Rust would have been a non-event. They solved a problem that was legitimately open at the time.
I think it would be clearer if we saw the person on the bike pass by and the last panel was just the character laying on the ground