For the sake of hypothetical example, presume I have had a long history of involvement in some C++ libs which I associate with good times, hilarious IRC sessions, friends, and pouring love into the labor of creating them during 0300 caffeine overdoses. How could I possibly evaluate leaving this behind without such bias?
Many choices are vulnerable to silly human biases which are hard to detect. Debating C++ versus Rust seems to be tough for some, and technical arguments have a propensity for becoming circular, so here's an analogy instead.
- Imagine, (if you have no extreme attachments to the web) that we have created a new web with new protocols, software, hardware, solved most crypto issues, authentication is reliable, we created the safe and anonymous place of everyone's (some ppls) dreams. Most of the advances are wonderful and (mostly) fueled by the latest research and smart minds, but there are a few bugs. Overall, an improvement and well adopted but still needing polish. The problem? All the old content isn't there. Some amazing new experiences await, but reddit and youpn are not unless you pull up an old web browser. If you were tasked with creating new content, which web would you choose and why?
I propose devs consider following either this, or some other method to evaluate C++ vs. Rust more objectively and try to set attachments aside. If, rather than thinking "but I won't have libX", you ask "how can I implement this functionality better today", you may decide that casting off old clutter is liberating and insightful.
I hope this helps some of you.
No comments yet.