The answer I found most interesting is was “What was the most frustrating part of using Rust?”. Like them, I wish Rust had some time of compile time reflection (and the rustconf fiasco partly to blame for that). As well as the ecosystem seemly valuing different things that I do. Similarly I to find myself with a value mismatch with the wider Rust ecosystem.
The author seems to have drifted towards Zig. Value-wise Zig seems better aligned with my values. But when I’ve looked at Zig the language I’ve found things like @This(). Sometimes I just wish that that Common Lisp (or Guile) had a better ops story.
Like them, I wish Rust had some time of compile time reflection (and the rustconf fiasco partly to blame for that).
It’s absolutely wild that it would be only mildly flippant to answer the question, “Why doesn’t Rust have compile-time reflection?” with “systemic racism.” And some people think tech is apolitical!
Value-wise Zig seems better aligned with my values. But when I’ve looked at Zig…
Same. I really want to love Zig, but it feels so janky.
ildly flippant to answer the question, “Why doesn’t Rust have compile-time reflection?” with “systemic racism.”
Indeed.The use of part I might disagree with is the use of the word systemic. Which as I understand* it is when the ‘neutral’ policies of the system serve the reinforce the biases. e.j. when a university in Latin America introduces ‘English as a second language’ to the admission evaluation criteria. The stated goal might be to select better prospective students. But when there is a correlation between knowing English as a second language and being of Hispanic descent (akka functionally white, as race is a sociopolitical construct that depends on the social context) it only serves to replicate the existing racial inequality of its society (chapa esa flor PUCP 🇵🇪️).
As I remember it, what happened was that two white Rustaceans conspired through informal communication channels to undermine of a black computer scientist. Seems more like normalized racism than systemic to me.
*And given that I only have a layman understanding of racism my understanding of systemic racism might be wildly off base.
I really want to love Zig, but it feels so janky.
janky seems like the right word. It kind of sucks because its very subjective. I wish Zig to continue succeeding, but it might not be for me.
I think your understanding is largely correct, and your example is very good. As I mentioned I was being a little bit flippant, though I do think you could make a case that it was primarily systemic factors that put white people in charge of the conference and thus, as a second (nth?) order effect, caused the whole fiasco.
I wouldn’t use the word bad. It suggests that there is something objectively wrong with it, which I don’t think it is.
I encountered @This at the top-level while reading a PostgreSQL protocol implementation (e.j. here and here). My understanding is that it is used when using the whole module as a struct (reference)? That means that a file/module is a struct? Can a module be instantiated multiple times or is it a singleton? Currently I think the answer is multiple times. Again there is nothing wrong with it, Perl’s moose takes a similar approach of a module/file being the class itself. In general I don’t like designs that favor creating several files when one would suffice.
Since they also are used as structs, similarly, you can instantiate however many times you’d like (TopLevelFields.zig shows an example of this, in the link above).
The answer I found most interesting is was “What was the most frustrating part of using Rust?”. Like them, I wish Rust had some time of compile time reflection (and the rustconf fiasco partly to blame for that). As well as the ecosystem seemly valuing different things that I do. Similarly I to find myself with a value mismatch with the wider Rust ecosystem.
The author seems to have drifted towards Zig. Value-wise Zig seems better aligned with my values. But when I’ve looked at Zig the language I’ve found things like
@This(). Sometimes I just wish that that Common Lisp (or Guile) had a better ops story.score 1 · canonical
It’s absolutely wild that it would be only mildly flippant to answer the question, “Why doesn’t Rust have compile-time reflection?” with “systemic racism.” And some people think tech is apolitical!
Same. I really want to love Zig, but it feels so janky.
score 2 · canonical
Indeed.The use of part I might disagree with is the use of the word systemic. Which as I understand* it is when the ‘neutral’ policies of the system serve the reinforce the biases. e.j. when a university in Latin America introduces ‘English as a second language’ to the admission evaluation criteria. The stated goal might be to select better prospective students. But when there is a correlation between knowing English as a second language and being of Hispanic descent (akka functionally white, as race is a sociopolitical construct that depends on the social context) it only serves to replicate the existing racial inequality of its society (chapa esa flor PUCP 🇵🇪️).
As I remember it, what happened was that two white Rustaceans conspired through informal communication channels to undermine of a black computer scientist. Seems more like normalized racism than systemic to me.
*And given that I only have a layman understanding of racism my understanding of systemic racism might be wildly off base.
janky seems like the right word. It kind of sucks because its very subjective. I wish Zig to continue succeeding, but it might not be for me.
score 1 · canonical
I think your understanding is largely correct, and your example is very good. As I mentioned I was being a little bit flippant, though I do think you could make a case that it was primarily systemic factors that put white people in charge of the conference and thus, as a second (nth?) order effect, caused the whole fiasco.
score 1 · canonical
What’s so bad about it? It’s for referencing the current type when creating generic types.
score 1 · canonical
I wouldn’t use the word bad. It suggests that there is something objectively wrong with it, which I don’t think it is.
I encountered @This at the top-level while reading a PostgreSQL protocol implementation (e.j. here and here). My understanding is that it is used when using the whole module as a struct (reference)? That means that a file/module is a struct? Can a module be instantiated multiple times or is it a singleton? Currently I think the answer is multiple times. Again there is nothing wrong with it, Perl’s moose takes a similar approach of a module/file being the class itself. In general I don’t like designs that favor creating several files when one would suffice.
score 1 · canonical
from the module documentation
Since they also are used as structs, similarly, you can instantiate however many times you’d like (TopLevelFields.zig shows an example of this, in the link above).
score 1 · canonical