1. 66
  1.  

  2. 22

    🚀

    1. 16

      I am a bit reassured that I am not the only one thinking that the numerous claims of “blazingly fast” Rust lib/apps can be a bit annoying. ^^

      1. 27

        93°C on all cores is certainly blazing.

        1. 2

          They might run fast, but compiling is painfully slow. My 2017 (I think) dual core XPS takes ages to compile anything with GUI elements or even moderately complicated. On my desktop machine (5900X) it’s bearable.

        2. 13

          This sings to my soul so deeply. Rust can be incredibly beautiful, and I love using it as my main language, but so much of the ecosystem exists primarily as a learning exercise for learning as many features and frameworks as possible, and you end up with a lot of the same crazy-eyed dogmatism that we all remember from the waves of Go converts but without the prison-like feature set to force people’s fingers into exhaustion with “if err != nil” and causing ambitions of self-expression to die before too big of a mess had built-up. It can be hard to find Rust written by people who have learned that a minimal feature set is often the fastest thing to write, the easiest to debug, the fastest thing to compile, and the fastest thing for the machine to execute.

          1. 10

            C in “c language” stands for cringe and CVE

            Finally, a better answer than “it came after B”

            1. 10

              ahah those quotes are real!

              “Rust held onto it’s spot as the most beloved language among the professional developers we surveyed. That said, the majority of developers who took the survey aren’t familiar with the language.”

              in:

              https://stackoverflow.blog/2020/05/27/2020-stack-overflow-developer-survey-results/

              1. 3

                Plurality ≠ majority.

                But the rest of the quotes are pretty funny.

              2. 7

                I appreciate satire as much as the next guy, and rust champions can definitely be a little overbearing. But this isn’t satire. Absurdist perhaps but none of the code in their looks even remotely like a satire on Rust projects or code. More like a perversion for the sake of absurdity.

                1. 13

                  This is - by the very definition of the word - satire.

                  1. 4

                    You are trying to deny @zaphar their interpretation of ‘satire’ by an appeal to authority. That authority does not exist. There is no agreed upon definition of ‘satire’ to appeal to. Different people consider different things satirical. It’s entirely reasonable to draw a distinction between an ‘absurdist’ piece of art and a ‘satirical’ piece of art and consider this an example of one, but not the other.

                    At most we can say that @zaphar is wrong in that this most certainly is considered satire by many people. The mistake that this ‘is not’ satire is possibly due to unnecessarily considering ‘absurdity’ and ‘satiricality’ as mutually exclusive, whereas I at least would argue that absurdity can be a means through which satirical effects can be achieved.

                    1. 4

                      I’ll note that perhaps I’ve just missed the bits of Rust that this is intended to satirize. When I looked at the repo all I saw was a bunch of code that looked about as unrecognizable as Rust code as it could be. I literally couldn’t figure out what it was meant to be satirizing since it was so foreign. It was definitely absurd Rust I could see that.

                      1. 3

                        A coworker of mine responded (jokingly) to the repo with, “at least its rust. i will happily dedicate my computer to executing zero cost, semantically moving rust code” so I assume it’s at the very least a jab at that kind of attitude.

                        1. 2

                          In a code review I would send this back with a “Rewrite it so I can read it” comment and nothing else :-)

                      2. 4

                        Apologies for getting off-topic here but I actually really enjoyed parsing this out:

                        Your own argument is fallacious. I have made no claim that a specific authority - be it Merriam-Webster or Oxford or Cambridge - can be said to have the most correct definition. At best, it can be said that I have appealed to English-speakers in general, who generate consensus in the form of media, which is then further documented by a source when the need arises. Dictionaries are one source that acts as an artifact of that consensus (albeit a laggy one). Definitions enter and leave them as consensus changes. They are snapshots which attempt to capture the intended meaning behind a word’s usage. It would be a mistake to consider the snapshots to be prescriptive. They are descriptive of the consensus.

                        Words have definitions. It’s the property by which we are capable of having this conversation in text right now. It’s remarkable that despite your claim that there is no agreed upon definition to appeal to for the meaning of a given word that all of this can occur. There is clearly a mechanism at play here that allows us to understand the words we are saying. It is by consensus. You are mistaken that there is no agreed upon definition of “satire,” as there still remains a set of artifacts that suggest otherwise. The fact that these sources are not in perfect alignment does not diminish the presence of this agreement. The consensus is there and represented in artifacts such as wikipedia, dictionaries, essays, forum posts, and tweets. There are sufficient sources to justify the consensus and - by extension - a common definition.

                        Therefore, I am not making an appeal to authority here, as only by majority rule are words granted definitions. Critically, also, this is not an appeal to popularity, as the definition of a word is a direct manifestation of the majority consensus. It cannot be said that 99 people are using a word “wrong” and the remaining 1 is correct, as it is only by the majority that words are granted their accepted definitions in the first place. The “truth” of a definition cannot be mistaken by a group. The truth of one is granted by it.

                        The general consensus for “satire” is that it can involve exaggeration or ridicule to criticize foolish behavior. Oftentimes it is used in the context of politics, but not always, and this is not required.

                        In summary, I am not denying zaphar’s interpretation using an appeal to authority. I am denying zaphar’s interpretation using majority consensus.

                        1. 2

                          I normally don’t keep these conversations going but this particular one is sort of fun :-D

                          I recognize this as an attempt at satire certainly. It’s just that I’ve personally never encountered the foolish behavior being satirized which weakens the result down to just absurdity rather than effective satire for me. I’ll admit that I’ve almost, if not in fact, entirely worked on or participated in Rust code where none of the supposed satirized behavior existed.

                          In a sense, I think you could say the joke flew entirely over my head.

                    2. 3

                      Well it’s not even so much a satire about real Rust code as it’s written by real Rust developers as it is a joke about the attitudes of those in the Rust ecosystem. It’s pretty obvious if you read the README who and what it’s making fun of and why. The code isn’t the focus, although the code is frankly perfectly bad in ways that exacerbate Rust’s worst qualities (its unreadability, its endless and ever-growing pile of syntax and sugar etc, nightly compiler features used by half of the crates you’ll find, sticking metaprogramming where it doesn’t belong, and so on) and what’s stopping big fans of Rust from seeing this are the very attitudes being satirized in the README.

                      Let’s look at an example. Why does the project build so slowly? Well, it’s because Rust’s compiler builds things slowly in general, but more importantly it’s because the project has well over a thousand dependencies. Here’s the thing: the writer didn’t add a thousand dependencies to cargo.toml. If you go check the cargo.toml you’ll see it actually has 84 dependencies. That’s still a lot, but the writer is making fun of the fact that each dependency pulls in on average over a dozen further dependencies. And since Rust takes so long building one project, building all 1061 dependencies takes hours. All of these are complaints people have leveled against Rust in the past, but packaged into a rather absurd but real example. The writer didn’t manually drag in a thousand dependencies to make the project build slowly, they added 84 and let cargo do its thing, dragging in a thousand dependencies all on its own. Then they let that daisy-chain into Rust’s already slow build times to make the project literally unusable.

                      But the joke truly comes in the README where the writer says:

                      🚀 This project is very minimal, it only requires 1061 crates 🚀

                      and

                      Due to the lightweightness of rust(🚀), unlike node_modules being fairly large for few dependencies, rust(🚀) manages compile caches efficiently and stores them to storage to save compile times! Just 33G target folder, the compile time is around 2 hours and 30 minutes on my mac on release mode

                      And here it’s not only making fun of how Rust performs in this case (because it’s very easy to clap back that of course the compiler performs poorly when you intentionally craft your project to make that happen), but taking observations that have been made about Rust projects in general and making them more obvious. Then the README mimics the language and rhetoric that is usually used to argue against those observations but now that there aren’t a hundred dependencies but instead a thousand, and now that it doesn’t take five minutes to build a trivial project but instead several hours, that rhetoric is absurd on its face.

                      That’s just one of the many jokes and critiques being made here.

                      1. 2

                        I guess I just haven’t interacted with the projects that have this explosion of crates so I don’t get the joke. Which is fine. I’m sure there are Rust projects that exhibit the excesses being made fun of here. I just haven’t experienced them.

                        1. 1

                          Yeah, this is funny to me but it’s — and I don’t know how else to word this — very, very online. Some of it only makes sense in the context of the eternal nonsense culture war over Rust that’s continually being fought in every corner of the internet.

                    3. 6

                      Should I be embarrassed by how long it took me to realize that this was satirical?

                      Or should rust?

                      1. 6

                        I’d like to also present my occasionally widened BadBuzz collection: https://github.com/abstractbeliefs/badbuzz

                        It’s Java Enterprise FizzBuzz, same as this blazing fast memory safe hello world written in Rust. Pull requests welcome, in whatever weird, wacky language or unusual implementation you fancy.

                        1. 4

                          Looks like a good opportunity to microservice the two together.