This comment is itself a meta comment but here we go I guess...How is it possible that half the comments in this thread are about the title itself? It’s not even a made-up title, it’s taken straight from the project’s README...I keep seeing people complaining almost aggressively that others are touting Rust as a useful tool (which, to me personally, it certainly is). Does someone have a financial stake in opposing Rust’s development, or what?
saiditmate 21 minutes ago [-]
(This post will be downvoted and flagged by Rust cultists and Rust people with financial stakes.)
More like, if a submission has "written in Rust" in it, the Rust cultists and non-human bots will automatically upvote it.
There are definitely financial stakes at play, but financially interested Rust advocates are by far the worst of the bunch regarding behavior, apart from the Rust cult, which by lightyears is the worst of any programming language, with their organized social media manipulation and harassment and murderous ways. The Rust Foundation and others in the Rust community inherited and evolved their fundraising approach from Mozilla, and the Rust Foundation actively gives money to people whose primary job is to "promote" Rust, instead of purely giving it to developers to develop on compilers, tools, infrastructure and related technical topics. Other really bad offenders include, perhaps surprisingly, the Ada vendors, user pjmlp might be leading the charge there. Ada vendors still long for the days where they had a monopoly mandated by the US government.
Mojo got a billion dollar investment, but they seem to be focused on not shilling their language, but actually making a genuinely excellent language, though I have not tried it myself. As an example, it seems to handle temporary lifetime extension way better than Rust, C++ and Zig, with its explicit destructors among other features.
For languages like Scala and C++, they are way too embroiled in internal infighting to do much of anything. Funnily enough, one side of C++ is dominated by Rust cultists. C++ has an ISO standard, and is very complex, meaning some of the main proponents there are educators and book writers, though they generally seem focused inwards. No one really likes C++, it is too old and has very significant issues, but it can have practical value in some cases. Its ISO standard also hinders any party from gaining complete control of it, though its design and development has already been sabotaged from the inside, and it counts against C++ that it has failed to prevent that much sabotage. Rust is also facing sabotage from the inside, but this seems to be more due to tragedy of the commons, where proposal makers consider it more important for their proposals to become part of the Rust language (and the proposal maker in question getting prestige) than for the Rust language to improve, something that many languages suffer from. The Rust community might also in several cases be too afraid of their own cultists to say no to proposals or to criticize proposals properly. "Democratization" in Rust has been interpreted by some as that there should be no or barely any requirements and expectations for language changes. The lies and dishonesty of the Rust community and cult only worsens this issue.
Zig has anti-LLM activists, but they do not seem numerous nor all that active.
C has barely anyone, just some WG14 committee members and other interested people, the language is too old, too widespread, too minimalistic and too foundational either way.
Java, C#, Kotlin, Typescript, Go, Python, and many others, all have their niches, and the ecosystems of the garbage-collected languages seem to function decently. The systems languages, on the other hand, all seem to have significant technical or practical issues in some regards or another, and being the foundation of lots of other technology, they can both be strategically important and possibly more difficult to directly make money from regarding developing and designing the given languages. I wonder how Mojo's Modular is planning to make money, perhaps strategic control? Systems languages have a lot of room for improvement still. Mojo is an interesting entry, but it is still very young and untested.
Apart from cults and financial stakes of companies, organizations and individuals, there are some people from small or failing/failed language communities that are embittered about their languages failing/having failed or not being larger. This is especially the case with Ada and overlaps with financial stakes there, but there are also many other, often very small languages. A similar boat is newcomer languages, that often transition into the embittered and failed language boat. This is tragic, because on one hand, these languages should be praised for experimentation, especially when they have genuine innovation and not just random rehashing, and on the other hand, their makers ought to be aware that there are no guarantee of success. And many designers and comminity members of small languages are indeed graceful about their language not becoming widespread, but that is not the case for all such people.
13415 3 minutes ago [-]
Rust's user community is toxic and unbearable. That's enough to explain the widespread resentment against it. Their fanboys are annoying. CommonLisp used to have a similar community problem.
1 hours ago [-]
chvid 5 hours ago [-]
Almost usable on an iPhone.
6 hours ago [-]
gaoheyang 1 hours ago [-]
nice
BobMcBob 5 hours ago [-]
Yet another avenue to play EGATREK in a browser. For that, its work it.
unixhero 5 hours ago [-]
What's great about Egatrek?
EvanAnderson 4 hours ago [-]
Oh, holy crap. I haven't thought about EGATREK in at least 30 years. I'm going to go dig it up right now. Thanks for causing me to recall that memory!
szundi 6 hours ago [-]
Why never seeing a title “written by C” or Java or js
(To clarify: I like Rust. I use it every day. But this is going too far.)
pjmlp 5 hours ago [-]
Because they predate HN, and aren't hip languages any longer.
There was a time for CoffeeScript, PureScript, Elm, Ruby and whatever else you can think of.
Naturally Lisp has to have monthly entries.
/s
imhoguy 6 hours ago [-]
Because nowadays "written in Rust" means "written by AI", as Java or C are not so sexy for LLMs /s
tenox7 6 hours ago [-]
The main feature of apps written in Rust is that they are written in Rust.
dosisking 6 hours ago [-]
"It's not a feature, it's a bug"
fortran77 5 hours ago [-]
I flag all these “written in Rust” posts.
globalnode 4 hours ago [-]
its just ppl trying to be different from their boring parents. wish i had enough karma to flag them too but i keep getting downvoted into oblivion for making fun of written in rust posts
azwaterdamagere 4 hours ago [-]
lol
globalnode 5 hours ago [-]
the other week i wrote a program in python, and ive been thinking of upgrading my cpp knowledge from v11, wish me luck
tonyhart7 4 hours ago [-]
how to use this fossil computer era ????? I cant type shhiiii
rvz 2 hours ago [-]
Written in Rust™
hnlmorg 5 hours ago [-]
Early PCs weren’t written in Rust.
queenkjuul 3 hours ago [-]
Early PCs were made of steel which can rust
hnlmorg 3 hours ago [-]
Nicely done!
pjmlp 4 hours ago [-]
In C neither, despite urban myths.
hnlmorg 3 hours ago [-]
Is that something people believe? I can’t say that’s a myth I’ve ever heard.
pjmlp 3 hours ago [-]
Yep, before UNIX and C there were no systems programming languages, and after getting the clay tablets from UNIX and C, all civilisation was built upon them. /s
At least when you spend long time around some programming circles.
avadodin 2 hours ago [-]
computer, remove the extraneous slash es from the statement.
pjmlp 2 hours ago [-]
"I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that"
teiferer 3 hours ago [-]
What does the "written in Rust" contribute to the title, exactly?
Kudos 4 hours ago [-]
Not specific to this project, but nowadays when I see "written in rust" I hear "written by Claude".
binaryturtle 3 hours ago [-]
"cross-platform" and Rust, as advertised in the current title/link label, is incompatible for sure. Can't get that to run on my older OS X machine nor my Amiga. :)
Rendered at 11:43:04 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
/s
More like, if a submission has "written in Rust" in it, the Rust cultists and non-human bots will automatically upvote it.
There are definitely financial stakes at play, but financially interested Rust advocates are by far the worst of the bunch regarding behavior, apart from the Rust cult, which by lightyears is the worst of any programming language, with their organized social media manipulation and harassment and murderous ways. The Rust Foundation and others in the Rust community inherited and evolved their fundraising approach from Mozilla, and the Rust Foundation actively gives money to people whose primary job is to "promote" Rust, instead of purely giving it to developers to develop on compilers, tools, infrastructure and related technical topics. Other really bad offenders include, perhaps surprisingly, the Ada vendors, user pjmlp might be leading the charge there. Ada vendors still long for the days where they had a monopoly mandated by the US government.
Mojo got a billion dollar investment, but they seem to be focused on not shilling their language, but actually making a genuinely excellent language, though I have not tried it myself. As an example, it seems to handle temporary lifetime extension way better than Rust, C++ and Zig, with its explicit destructors among other features.
For languages like Scala and C++, they are way too embroiled in internal infighting to do much of anything. Funnily enough, one side of C++ is dominated by Rust cultists. C++ has an ISO standard, and is very complex, meaning some of the main proponents there are educators and book writers, though they generally seem focused inwards. No one really likes C++, it is too old and has very significant issues, but it can have practical value in some cases. Its ISO standard also hinders any party from gaining complete control of it, though its design and development has already been sabotaged from the inside, and it counts against C++ that it has failed to prevent that much sabotage. Rust is also facing sabotage from the inside, but this seems to be more due to tragedy of the commons, where proposal makers consider it more important for their proposals to become part of the Rust language (and the proposal maker in question getting prestige) than for the Rust language to improve, something that many languages suffer from. The Rust community might also in several cases be too afraid of their own cultists to say no to proposals or to criticize proposals properly. "Democratization" in Rust has been interpreted by some as that there should be no or barely any requirements and expectations for language changes. The lies and dishonesty of the Rust community and cult only worsens this issue.
Zig has anti-LLM activists, but they do not seem numerous nor all that active.
C has barely anyone, just some WG14 committee members and other interested people, the language is too old, too widespread, too minimalistic and too foundational either way.
Java, C#, Kotlin, Typescript, Go, Python, and many others, all have their niches, and the ecosystems of the garbage-collected languages seem to function decently. The systems languages, on the other hand, all seem to have significant technical or practical issues in some regards or another, and being the foundation of lots of other technology, they can both be strategically important and possibly more difficult to directly make money from regarding developing and designing the given languages. I wonder how Mojo's Modular is planning to make money, perhaps strategic control? Systems languages have a lot of room for improvement still. Mojo is an interesting entry, but it is still very young and untested.
Apart from cults and financial stakes of companies, organizations and individuals, there are some people from small or failing/failed language communities that are embittered about their languages failing/having failed or not being larger. This is especially the case with Ada and overlaps with financial stakes there, but there are also many other, often very small languages. A similar boat is newcomer languages, that often transition into the embittered and failed language boat. This is tragic, because on one hand, these languages should be praised for experimentation, especially when they have genuine innovation and not just random rehashing, and on the other hand, their makers ought to be aware that there are no guarantee of success. And many designers and comminity members of small languages are indeed graceful about their language not becoming widespread, but that is not the case for all such people.
but I see your point.
(To clarify: I like Rust. I use it every day. But this is going too far.)
There was a time for CoffeeScript, PureScript, Elm, Ruby and whatever else you can think of.
Naturally Lisp has to have monthly entries.
/s
At least when you spend long time around some programming circles.