Meh I dislike Musk as well but I don’t let that cloud my judgement of his companies or science/engineering in general.

Right because innovation materializes itself when we want … We just flicked our fingers and airplane, cellphone and others just appeared.

Who are you to tell what we should or should not pursue?

Isn’t there space for both? Why not try multiple avenues? Why have this negative view on everything? Wouldn’t you say the airplane and the car have tremendously improved humanity, even with all its downsides? Or the cellphone?

I bet at the time of their inventions you would be opposing it because “billionaires are bad and this industry is going to explore the working class”. Guess what? Yes billionaires are bad and explore people and you (all of us) should be fighting against that, not against scientific and engineering inovation.

You seem to be letting your hatred for Musk confuse you about space exploration. NASA and other governmental agencies do very important work when it comes to space exploration

Is this sub-populated mostly by Facebook people? Some of the answers really feel like it.

You cherry picked his argument and left out the rest where he states China’s as cheaper standards of environmental “friendliness”

• You will spend your entire career chasing trends.

Depends on the language, that’s mostly a JavaScript/typescript issue.

• The market is volatile. People are constantly getting abruptly laid off. SD has never been very stable, so you should plan on getting a new job every few years.

Depends on the country, where I’m from there has been very few layoffs.

• Software companies are constantly looking for ways to make SD easier. As a result, your value will decrease over time, in preference for bootcampers and 2 year degree graduates.

Not sure what to say, I haven’t felt my value decrease. All I see are bubbles saying they will replace me… and then they burst.

Nobody listens to developers. Your manager’s beliefs about SD come entirely from consultants, magazines, and Elon Musk tweets.

Agree but that’s more of an engineering wide problem, specially when you get managers with very few engineering experience. Take the Apollo landings as an opposite example: great managers that were great engineers.

• Nobody cares about quality software. If you take the time to make your code efficient and lightweight, all your manager sees is you taking longer to make something than your peers. After all, we can just raise hardware requirements if the software is slow.

This is a bit too generic to argue against. You can get that in electrical engineering no? If you take more time designing that PCB because you want to better place the components to improve heat dissipation, will your manager care in the end?

Kind of. I agree partly. My mother used to knit winter clothes, for free, for some institutions and she wasn’t the one delivering them. They never knew who she was, and she didn’t bother.

I see your point, but in this case I feel OP was misinterpreting the situation

But that’s the thing where you are wrong. They clearly state they don’t want C developers to learn Rust. In the particular video posted he was saying “I want you to explain to me how this particular API works so that I can do it”

The concerns about who fixes what on a merge when the C code breaks Rust code are valid, but that’s easily fixed by gathering with the Rust developers, explaining the changes and letting them fix it.

Sure and place neovim there

Can you point out where I said that?

The issue is not agreeing, but behaving like an immature prick when arguing

Indeed :)

Isn’t Linux still Linux even though probably a lot of the original code is gone? Why would slowly rewriting it whole, or just parts, in Rust make it stop being Linux?

I agree with your views. But I have to give praise to Linus for bringing Rust into the kernel.

Yes I agree but the solution for a project so big and critical is not to fork. How do you maintain all of it while at the same time adding support to Rust?

The difference is that now you have a scope of where the memory unsafe code might be(unsafe keyword) and you look there instead of all the C code.

This is such a dumb take. For as much as I’d like to have a safer language in the kernel you need the current developers, the “big heads” at least because they have a lot of niche knowledge about their domains and how they implementation works (regardless of language) People shouldn’t take shit like this from the ext4 developer, but it doesn’t mean we should start vilifying all of them.

This guy’s concerns are real and valid but were expressed with the maturity of a lunatic child, but they are not all like this.

Better in what ways? Rust’s strong points are not to just make a program more stable, but more secure from a memory standpoint and I don’t think Linux keeps improving on that