Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.programming > #16768 > unrolled thread

Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?

Back to article view | Back to comp.programming

Contents

  Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-10 07:46 -0400
    Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-10 07:14 -0700
      Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2025-03-10 16:42 +0000
        Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-06-18 02:51 -0400
          Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-07-28 11:37 +0000
            Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2025-07-28 13:50 +0200
              Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-07-28 15:16 +0000
                Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2025-07-28 17:59 +0200
                  Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-07-28 22:18 +0000
                    Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2025-07-29 10:18 +0200
                      Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-07-29 12:16 +0000
                        Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-07-29 17:37 +0200
                          Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2025-07-29 18:24 +0200
                            Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2025-07-29 19:14 +0200
                          Rust vs Hype (was Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-07-29 18:27 +0000
                            Re: Rust vs Hype (was Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-08-02 17:47 +0200
                              Re: Rust vs Hype (was Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-08-04 22:33 +0000
                                Re: Rust vs Hype (was Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-08-06 18:38 +0200
                                  Re: Rust vs Hype (was Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-08-08 03:30 +0000
                        Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2025-07-30 19:08 +0200
                          Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-07-30 18:00 +0000
                            Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2025-07-30 20:34 +0200
                              Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-07-30 18:40 +0000
                                Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2025-07-30 20:51 +0200
                                  Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-07-30 18:53 +0000
                                    Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2025-09-05 10:59 +0200
                          Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2025-08-03 17:55 +0200
                            Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2025-08-03 18:17 +0200
                Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-07-29 06:24 +0100
                  Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-07-29 12:27 +0000
                    Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-07-30 07:44 +0100
                      Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-07-30 11:30 +0000
                        Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-07-30 16:51 +0100
                          Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-07-30 18:00 +0000
                        Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-08-02 18:41 +0200
                          Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-08-04 22:34 +0000
    Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-10 17:35 -0400

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#16830

In article <106dji3$3aqcv$1@dont-email.me>,
Julio Di Egidio  <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
>On 29/07/2025 14:16, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <106a04v$2hiar$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Julio Di Egidio  <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
>>> On 29/07/2025 00:18, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm not terribly interested in marketing slogans, to be honest.
>>>> "Safety" in this case has a very well-defined meaning, which may
>>>> not be the same as yours.
>>>
>>> Maybe you don't realise it, but you are *only* repeating
>>> the fake history and the fraudulent marketing slogans.
>> 
>> Unsupported assertions coupled with a lack of engagement
>
>Or maybe you just can't read.

Wow.  You seem nice.

>> and provide data.
>
>Sure, biased data for worse than wrong models that only
>confirm themselves...

Actually, I was suggesting that _you_ provide some data.

>Meanwhile real production is in the
>hands of the marketing and project management guys, while
>at writing code you want the computer scientists, in that
>proving that you not haven't got the faintest idea what
>software even means, but also you haven't got a clue
>where your own discipline starts and where it ends!

You haven't shown any code.  You haven't made any technical
arguments.  You haven't shown any data.  You've just thrown out
insults and made a bunch of vague assertions about...something;
none of it really makes a lot of sense.

Anyway, ad hominem attacks are not persuasive, either.

>Indeed, I was a top notch consultant in my area and giving
>university lessons on technology and technologies up to the
>'90, i.e. before SE or CS even existed as faculties.  Then
>the fucking locusts descended on us, and the fucking frauds
>all just to happy to jump on yet another bandwagon...
>
>Sure, do open a comp.lang.rust, you have no fucking
>clue what "picky" even means.

*shrug* Ok, dude.  Whatever you say. 8-/

	- Dan C.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16832

On 30/07/2025 20:00, Dan Cross wrote:
> In article <106dji3$3aqcv$1@dont-email.me>,
> Julio Di Egidio  <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
>> On 29/07/2025 14:16, Dan Cross wrote:
>>> In article <106a04v$2hiar$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> Julio Di Egidio  <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
>>>> On 29/07/2025 00:18, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not terribly interested in marketing slogans, to be honest.
>>>>> "Safety" in this case has a very well-defined meaning, which may
>>>>> not be the same as yours.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you don't realise it, but you are *only* repeating
>>>> the fake history and the fraudulent marketing slogans.
>>>
>>> Unsupported assertions coupled with a lack of engagement
>>
>> Or maybe you just can't read.
> 
> Wow.  You seem nice.

"Nice"??  Have you looked outside your window lately?

>>> and provide data.
>>
>> Sure, biased data for worse than wrong models that only
>> confirm themselves...
> 
> Actually, I was suggesting that _you_ provide some data.

As I did say since earlier, that very *paradigm* is a global
fraud!  It's not my fault if you at best keep missing the point.

Indeed, do you think *you* are "nice"?  For your records, I have
offended nobody, except maybe the incivilization and inculture
that we/you collectively are.

Sure, keep going...

-Julio

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16833

In article <106dok3$3b9ks$1@dont-email.me>,
Julio Di Egidio  <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
>On 30/07/2025 20:00, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <106dji3$3aqcv$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Julio Di Egidio  <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
>>> On 29/07/2025 14:16, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>> In article <106a04v$2hiar$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>> Julio Di Egidio  <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
>>>>> On 29/07/2025 00:18, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not terribly interested in marketing slogans, to be honest.
>>>>>> "Safety" in this case has a very well-defined meaning, which may
>>>>>> not be the same as yours.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe you don't realise it, but you are *only* repeating
>>>>> the fake history and the fraudulent marketing slogans.
>>>>
>>>> Unsupported assertions coupled with a lack of engagement
>>>
>>> Or maybe you just can't read.
>> 
>> Wow.  You seem nice.
>
>"Nice"??  Have you looked outside your window lately?
>
>>>> and provide data.
>>>
>>> Sure, biased data for worse than wrong models that only
>>> confirm themselves...
>> 
>> Actually, I was suggesting that _you_ provide some data.
>
>As I did say since earlier, that very *paradigm* is a global
>fraud!  It's not my fault if you at best keep missing the point.

That's ridiculous.

>Indeed, do you think *you* are "nice"?  For your records, I have
>offended nobody, except maybe the incivilization and inculture
>that we/you collectively are.

You accused me of being unable to read.  That's rude, and
offensive.  If you don't understand that, it's really not my
problem.

>Sure, keep going...

No.

	- Dan C.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16834

On 30/07/2025 20:40, Dan Cross wrote:

> You accused me of being unable to read.  That's rude,

No, that was a *retort*, but you are either too stupid or
too dishonest to just shut the fuck up, let alone apologise.

*Plonk*

-Julio

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16835

In article <106dpis$3b9ks$2@dont-email.me>,
Julio Di Egidio  <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
>On 30/07/2025 20:40, Dan Cross wrote:
>
>> You accused me of being unable to read.  That's rude,
>
>No, that was a *retort*, but you are either too stupid or
>too dishonest to just shut the fuck up, let alone apologise.

Apologize for...what?

>*Plonk*

Good.

	- Dan C.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16864

On 30/07/2025 20:53, Dan Cross wrote:
> In article <106dpis$3b9ks$2@dont-email.me>,
> Julio Di Egidio  <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
>> On 30/07/2025 20:40, Dan Cross wrote:
>>
>>> You accused me of being unable to read.  That's rude,
>>
>> No, that was a *retort*, but you are either too stupid or
>> too dishonest to just shut the fuck up, let alone apologise.
> 
> Apologize for...what?

But the shameless fraudulent marketing together with the pollution
of all ponds won't stop, in the generalised nazi-retarded shithole
that we/you are, which the only thing that has really won: thank
you, the sons of the Huns and the self-fulfilling prophecies.

[Berkeley Seminar] Raph Levien | How Rust won: the quest for
performant, reliable software
<https://youtu.be/k_-6KI3m31M?si=9WCzZOtRmnaH4uf4>

Pieces of "winning" shit: but, besides the marketers on behalf of
the nazi monsters, a special thank you goes to the whole academic
and scientific pyramid, for the legitimisation of that and all
monstrosities: you special pieces of ungodly retarded shit...

-Julio

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16838

On 30/07/2025 19:08, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> On 29/07/2025 14:16, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <106a04v$2hiar$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Julio Di Egidio  <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
>>> On 29/07/2025 00:18, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm not terribly interested in marketing slogans, to be honest.
>>>> "Safety" in this case has a very well-defined meaning, which may
>>>> not be the same as yours.
>>>
>>> Maybe you don't realise it, but you are *only* repeating
>>> the fake history and the fraudulent marketing slogans.
>>
>> Unsupported assertions coupled with a lack of engagement
> 
> Or maybe you just can't read.
> 
>> and provide data.
> 
> Sure, biased data for worse than wrong models that only
> confirm themselves... Meanwhile real production is in the
> hands of the marketing and project management guys, while
> at writing code you want the computer scientists, in that
> proving that you not [only] haven't got the faintest idea
> what software even means, but also you haven't got a clue
> where your own discipline starts and where it ends!

On the "software crisis":
<< [...] just there is an essential distinction to make, between
proper and improper software production, with the vast majority of
the software endeavours nowadays belonging to the latter category.
Then, and just to begin with, the very shape of the industry-specific
performance surveys would change... In fact, I would claim that proper
software developers (and, scaling up, proper software production units)
do, already today, consistently provide near to optimal results, all
environmental circumstances considered! >>
<https://architectando.blogspot.com/2012/11/on-software-crisis.html>

-Julio

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16839

On 03/08/2025 17:55, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> On 30/07/2025 19:08, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>> On 29/07/2025 14:16, Dan Cross wrote:
>>> In article <106a04v$2hiar$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> Julio Di Egidio  <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
>>>> On 29/07/2025 00:18, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not terribly interested in marketing slogans, to be honest.
>>>>> "Safety" in this case has a very well-defined meaning, which may
>>>>> not be the same as yours.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you don't realise it, but you are *only* repeating
>>>> the fake history and the fraudulent marketing slogans.
>>>
>>> Unsupported assertions coupled with a lack of engagement
>>
>> Or maybe you just can't read.
>>
>>> and provide data.
>>
>> Sure, biased data for worse than wrong models that only
>> confirm themselves... Meanwhile real production is in the
>> hands of the marketing and project management guys, while
>> at writing code you want the computer scientists, in that
>> proving that you not [only] haven't got the faintest idea
>> what software even means, but also you haven't got a clue
>> where your own discipline starts and where it ends!
> 
> On the "software crisis":
> << [...] just there is an essential distinction to make, between
> proper and improper software production, with the vast majority of
> the software endeavours nowadays belonging to the latter category.
> Then, and just to begin with, the very shape of the industry-specific
> performance surveys would change... In fact, I would claim that proper
> software developers (and, scaling up, proper software production units)
> do, already today, consistently provide near to optimal results, all
> environmental circumstances considered! >>
> <https://architectando.blogspot.com/2012/11/on-software-crisis.html>

Roughly a decade later, the 95% becomes 99%:

Collective disaster:
<< [...] just the poorly thought out and written code that is
ubiquitous nowadays, in all guidance as in all practice, is
actually a cost, not just worthless: a generally unperceived
cost since that is 99% of the industry by now, indeed the very
rationale that founds and sustains it is that that is the best
we can do. >>
<https://architectando.blogspot.com/2024/10/collective-disaster.html>

-Julio

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16818

On 28/07/2025 16:16, Dan Cross wrote:
> Does this mean that the language is perfect, and will prevent
> all bugs?  No, of course not; it's not magic.  But this line of
> reasoning that says, "well, you can still have bugs, so what's
> the point?" inevitably ignores the relative rate of those bugs
> between languages, which does matter.  It's the same argument
> that says, "you can still die in a car crash, so we don't need
> seatbelts or airbags."  Yet all available data shows that those
> things_do_  in fact save lives.

Whilst you are unlikely ever to catch me within a light year of 
Rust, I do agree with your substantive point - that amagicality 
is not a good reason to reject a programming technology.

I must, however, take issue with your word 'all' in your last 
sentence. To invalidate it only takes one death caused by a 
seatbelt that prevents a wearer from escaping a fatal crash (eg 
burning or drowning).

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16821

In article <1069ltn$2ffpl$1@dont-email.me>,
Richard Heathfield  <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>On 28/07/2025 16:16, Dan Cross wrote:
>> Does this mean that the language is perfect, and will prevent
>> all bugs?  No, of course not; it's not magic.  But this line of
>> reasoning that says, "well, you can still have bugs, so what's
>> the point?" inevitably ignores the relative rate of those bugs
>> between languages, which does matter.  It's the same argument
>> that says, "you can still die in a car crash, so we don't need
>> seatbelts or airbags."  Yet all available data shows that those
>> things _do_ in fact save lives.
>
>Whilst you are unlikely ever to catch me within a light year of 
>Rust, I do agree with your substantive point - that amagicality 
>is not a good reason to reject a programming technology.

Agreed.

>I must, however, take issue with your word 'all' in your last 
>sentence. To invalidate it only takes one death caused by a 
>seatbelt that prevents a wearer from escaping a fatal crash (eg 
>burning or drowning).

I can see why you might interpret it that way, but I'm not sure
your conclusion actually follows from my statement.  "All data
shows that those things _do_ in fact save lives" doesn't imply
that no lives are lost, even when restraint harnesses, flash
suits, and so on are used.  Nor does it imply that no one ever
died because, say, the restraint harness resulted in suspension
trauma or something.  Rather, taken in context, it simply means
that when used, more lives are saved relative to when not used.
"It always rains on Tuesday" doesn't say anything at all about
whether it rains on Wednesday or not.

Regardless, clearly there is some ambiguity here, so a tighter
statement is warranted.  How about, "available data shows that
with proper use of restraint harnesses and flash suits, drivers
survive more crashes than when those things are not used." ?

Similarly, available data shows that programs written in the
safe subset of Rust have significantly lower memory-related
defect rates than those same programs written in C.

	- Dan C.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16826

On 29/07/2025 13:27, Dan Cross wrote:
> In article <1069ltn$2ffpl$1@dont-email.me>,
> Richard Heathfield  <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 28/07/2025 16:16, Dan Cross wrote:
>>> Does this mean that the language is perfect, and will prevent
>>> all bugs?  No, of course not; it's not magic.  But this line of
>>> reasoning that says, "well, you can still have bugs, so what's
>>> the point?" inevitably ignores the relative rate of those bugs
>>> between languages, which does matter.  It's the same argument
>>> that says, "you can still die in a car crash, so we don't need
>>> seatbelts or airbags."  Yet all available data shows that those
>>> things _do_ in fact save lives.
>>
>> Whilst you are unlikely ever to catch me within a light year of
>> Rust, I do agree with your substantive point - that amagicality
>> is not a good reason to reject a programming technology.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
>> I must, however, take issue with your word 'all' in your last
>> sentence. To invalidate it only takes one death caused by a
>> seatbelt that prevents a wearer from escaping a fatal crash (eg
>> burning or drowning).
> 
> I can see why you might interpret it that way, but I'm not sure
> your conclusion actually follows from my statement.  "All data
> shows that those things _do_ in fact save lives" doesn't imply
> that no lives are lost, even when restraint harnesses, flash
> suits, and so on are used.

Well, yes it does. "All data shows X" most definitely implies 
that "no data shows not-X".

But I've made my point, so on that note I will underline my 
acknowledgement that I'm being ++picky.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16827

In article <106cf06$32d5u$1@dont-email.me>,
Richard Heathfield  <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>On 29/07/2025 13:27, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <1069ltn$2ffpl$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Richard Heathfield  <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>>> On 28/07/2025 16:16, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>> Does this mean that the language is perfect, and will prevent
>>>> all bugs?  No, of course not; it's not magic.  But this line of
>>>> reasoning that says, "well, you can still have bugs, so what's
>>>> the point?" inevitably ignores the relative rate of those bugs
>>>> between languages, which does matter.  It's the same argument
>>>> that says, "you can still die in a car crash, so we don't need
>>>> seatbelts or airbags."  Yet all available data shows that those
>>>> things _do_ in fact save lives.
>>>
>>> Whilst you are unlikely ever to catch me within a light year of
>>> Rust, I do agree with your substantive point - that amagicality
>>> is not a good reason to reject a programming technology.
>> 
>> Agreed.
>> 
>>> I must, however, take issue with your word 'all' in your last
>>> sentence. To invalidate it only takes one death caused by a
>>> seatbelt that prevents a wearer from escaping a fatal crash (eg
>>> burning or drowning).
>> 
>> I can see why you might interpret it that way, but I'm not sure
>> your conclusion actually follows from my statement.  "All data
>> shows that those things _do_ in fact save lives" doesn't imply
>> that no lives are lost, even when restraint harnesses, flash
>> suits, and so on are used.
>
>Well, yes it does. "All data shows X" most definitely implies 
>that "no data shows not-X".

That is true, but irrelevant: the issue here is the definition
of "X".  "[T]hose things _do_ in fact save lives" is not the
same as "all lives are saved, and none are lost due to the
equipment."  I never said the latter, and it is not implied by
the former statement.  Conflating them is a logical error, but I
did acknowledge that the statement can reasonably be seen as
sufficiently imprecise that it should be revised, and did so.

>But I've made my point, so on that note I will underline my 
>acknowledgement that I'm being ++picky.

I fear I am, as well.

	- Dan C.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16828

On 30/07/2025 12:30, Dan Cross wrote:
> In article <106cf06$32d5u$1@dont-email.me>,
> Richard Heathfield  <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

<snip>

>> But I've made my point, so on that note I will underline my
>> acknowledgement that I'm being ++picky.
> 
> I fear I am, as well.

And thus it is that two complete strangers have a blazing row in 
public, not a single punch is thrown or expletive uttered, and 
they end with a smile and a handshake.

Gotta love Usenet.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16831

In article <106df2q$39nv6$1@dont-email.me>,
Richard Heathfield  <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>On 30/07/2025 12:30, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <106cf06$32d5u$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Richard Heathfield  <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>> But I've made my point, so on that note I will underline my
>>> acknowledgement that I'm being ++picky.
>> 
>> I fear I am, as well.
>
>And thus it is that two complete strangers have a blazing row in 
>public, not a single punch is thrown or expletive uttered, and 
>they end with a smile and a handshake.

The state of violent agreement!  :-)

>Gotta love Usenet.

I do miss the collegial atmosphere of older USENET.

	- Dan C.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16837

On 30/07/2025 13:30, Dan Cross wrote:
> In article <106cf06$32d5u$1@dont-email.me>,
> Richard Heathfield  <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 29/07/2025 13:27, Dan Cross wrote:
>>> In article <1069ltn$2ffpl$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> Richard Heathfield  <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 28/07/2025 16:16, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>> Does this mean that the language is perfect, and will prevent
>>>>> all bugs?  No, of course not; it's not magic.  But this line of
>>>>> reasoning that says, "well, you can still have bugs, so what's
>>>>> the point?" inevitably ignores the relative rate of those bugs
>>>>> between languages, which does matter.  It's the same argument
>>>>> that says, "you can still die in a car crash, so we don't need
>>>>> seatbelts or airbags."  Yet all available data shows that those
>>>>> things _do_ in fact save lives.
>>>>
>>>> Whilst you are unlikely ever to catch me within a light year of
>>>> Rust, I do agree with your substantive point - that amagicality
>>>> is not a good reason to reject a programming technology.
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>>> I must, however, take issue with your word 'all' in your last
>>>> sentence. To invalidate it only takes one death caused by a
>>>> seatbelt that prevents a wearer from escaping a fatal crash (eg
>>>> burning or drowning).
>>>
>>> I can see why you might interpret it that way, but I'm not sure
>>> your conclusion actually follows from my statement.  "All data
>>> shows that those things _do_ in fact save lives" doesn't imply
>>> that no lives are lost, even when restraint harnesses, flash
>>> suits, and so on are used.
>>
>> Well, yes it does. "All data shows X" most definitely implies
>> that "no data shows not-X".
> 
> That is true, but irrelevant: the issue here is the definition
> of "X".  "[T]hose things _do_ in fact save lives" is not the
> same as "all lives are saved, and none are lost due to the
> equipment."  I never said the latter, and it is not implied by
> the former statement.  Conflating them is a logical error, but I
> did acknowledge that the statement can reasonably be seen as
> sufficiently imprecise that it should be revised, and did so.
> 

Without taking any sides here, it is easy to make the mistake of 
thinking that logical rules can apply to sets of propositions in the 
same way as they apply to propositions.  This leads to the famous Cheese 
Sandwich Theorem:

1. Nothing is better than complete happiness.
2. A cheese sandwich is better than nothing.
3. Therefore, a cheese sandwich is better than complete happiness.

Time for lunch :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16841

In article <106lf4d$15pv5$1@dont-email.me>,
David Brown  <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>On 30/07/2025 13:30, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <106cf06$32d5u$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Richard Heathfield  <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>> [snip]
>Without taking any sides here, it is easy to make the mistake of 
>thinking that logical rules can apply to sets of propositions in the 
>same way as they apply to propositions.  This leads to the famous Cheese 
>Sandwich Theorem:
>
>1. Nothing is better than complete happiness.
>2. A cheese sandwich is better than nothing.
>3. Therefore, a cheese sandwich is better than complete happiness.
>
>Time for lunch :-)

Make it pastrami on rye and you may be onto something there. :-D

	- Dan C.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16771

On 2025-03-10, Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
> [Note: Followup-To: set to news.groups.proposals]
>
> I'd like to open informal discussion around possibly creating a
> new newsgroup, comp.lang.rust, for discussion of the Rust
> programming language (https://rust-lang.org/).

Grownups interested in Rust should have a place for discussing it in
which "anything goes", and Usenet is the best forum in the world for
that.

Now, I strongly suspect that a Rust newsgroup will be ignored by pretty
much the entire current Rust demographic---but it doesn't matter.

Usenet has no security.  People can use fake identies easily.  The
authenticty of next to nothing can be ascertained.  It's not a "safe"
environment. Anyone can say anything. You cannot enforce anything
resembling a code of conduct.

Core Rust development discussions (the sane people) are certainly not
going to move to Usenet, where they cannot enforce their rules.

Most of the remaining demographic clustered around Rust cannot wrap
their heads around that something like Usenet is even allowed to exist.
It mainly consists of paranoid, security-obsessed freaks who are running
from something, and includes a surprising number of social activists.

A Rust forum repugnant to them could foster alterantive narratives.
It would be a benefit to Rust, even if in all likelihood small.

-- 
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.programming

csiph-web