From: julio@diegidio.name   
      
   On 28/07/2025 17:16, Dan Cross wrote:   
   > In article <1067o6p$24rjd$2@dont-email.me>,   
   > Julio Di Egidio   wrote:   
   >> On 28/07/2025 13:37, Dan Cross wrote:   
      
   >> IOW, the idea that programmers in general need to be baby-seated   
   >   
   > I wouldn't phrase it as "babysitting".  Rather, it's   
   > professionals making conscious choices about their tools to most   
   > effectively do their jobs.   
   >   
   >> instead of given control I find not just self-defeating but really   
   >> fallacious.   
   >   
   > In what way do you feel you have less control (and over what?)   
   > in Rust than in, say, C?   
      
   To be clear, I have nothing against the institution of a   
   comp.lang.rust (on the contrary, I'd be tempted to say), nor   
   against the Rust language itself: I am rather commenting on   
   some questions of principle, and maybe some marketing slogans,   
   especially on the themes of "safety" on a side and "assisted"   
   programming on the other.   
      
   Indeed, I am not against a stratification of languages from lower   
   to higher level either, actually that's quite needed, I am just   
   of the idea that programmers should not be "protected" by anybody   
   but more competent programmers: but of course with that goes a   
   quite different idea of what *software development* means, and   
   to me it does not primarily mean we buy "solutions" at the shop,   
   the very opposite of that.   
      
   Instead we get an inversion of the chain of control and of   
   responsibility that is rather one of the key ingredients, the   
   other being the denial of the very state of the art, of the   
   disaster that the whole industry has been made into across   
   the last ~30 years...   
      
   ...and the self-fulfilling prophecies, since average is the data,   
   averaging are and have been the policies, average are the results,   
   and the circle is closed: with the triumph of the levelling down   
   to ineptitude and consumeristic dependence.   
      
   Here is rather an analogy: go tell a race car driver that it is   
   "unsafe" for them to touch their breaks in a turn, and that you   
   actually have a "solution" in mind that will automatically disable   
   the breaks in a turn (and punish the driver for it)... or something   
   along that line.   
      
   Here is not an analogy: only a competent programmer knows the   
   discipline, the principles, the practices, and in fact how to   
   organise not only a production unit that delivers excellent   
   products, but also that continually grows in the level of   
   competence and professionalism, with clear paths for learning   
   and action since the beginner stages.   
      
   Because software engineering is the most complex engineering   
   that there is: it takes some 10 years to those who are really   
   committed to start understanding what it is actually about,   
   and some another 10 years of at least as much commitment to   
   become real pros.   
      
   -Julio   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)