• flying_sheep@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Because they just have their own brain chemistry as the basis of it whereas the above comment clearly states:

      Rust has proven empirically that the tradeoff between performance and safety doesn’t need to exist.

      Which is truth. And it’s much easier to base a coherent argument on truth rather than vibes.

      • beliquititious@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Eh, technical merit is only one of many factors that determine what language is the “best”. Best is inherently a subjective assessment. Rust’s safety and performance is the conceptual bible rustacians use to justify thier faith.

        I also know religious people who have written books about their faith too (my uncle is a preacher and my ex-spouse was getting their doctorate in theology). Rust has the same reality-blind, proselytizing zealots.

        The needs of the project being planning and the technical abilities of the developers building it are more important that what language is superior.

        I like rust. I own a physical copy of the book and donated money to the rust foundation. I have written a few utilities and programs in rust. The runtime performance and safety is paid for in dev time. I would argue that for most software projects, especially small ones, Rust adds too much complexity for maintainability and ease of development.