←back to thread

348 points giuliomagnifico | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
epolanski ◴[] No.46243675[source]
If Rust helps with their pains and they like Rust this seems very sensible.

That's exactly why we have different languages and tools, because they adapt differently to different projects, teams and problems.

But as soon as you get into the silly "tool X is better period" arguments, then all the nuance of choosing the right tool for the job is lost.

replies(8): >>46243722 #>>46244465 #>>46244778 #>>46245023 #>>46245269 #>>46245325 #>>46246309 #>>46250138 #
dingdingdang ◴[] No.46243722[source]
Sensible take, thank you. When HN get these "our project: from x to y language" frontpage stories I am always thinking that it would be far more exciting with "our project: 38.2% smaller code base by optimizing our dependency use", "our project: performance optimized by 16.4% by basic profiler use" or similar!
replies(4): >>46244428 #>>46244440 #>>46244501 #>>46244694 #
1. staticassertion ◴[] No.46244428[source]
Isn't this just the same value judgment mistake? You're just presupposing that things like "smaller code base" are better in virtue of themselves the same way that "rewritten in Rust" might be as well.

The parent poster's point is seemingly to reject "this is simply the better thing" (ie: "small code is better") and instead to focus on "for what we are doing it is the better thing". Why would "basic" profiler use be better than "niche" or "advanced" profiler use if for that context basic would actually have been inferior (for whatever value of basic we choose to go with)?

It seems to me that the reality we're often confronted with is that "better" is contextual, and I would say that "basic" or "smaller" are contextual too.