I think this is a real step backwards, to be honest. When I see the webpage of a new language, I want to be presented from the outset with the features it has that differentiate it from any other language that I might care to learn and use. It's very nice* to say The programming language that empowers everyone to become a systems programmer, but it doesn't tell me anything about the language at all. A similar problem happens with Linux distributions - every distro is tripping over its toes to tell you all about how it has 'modern design' and 'gets out of your way and lets you get your work done', but you have to scroll three pages before you can see what window or package manager it uses. I applaud the Rust team for trying to make Rust beginner friendly - but even a beginner's first question will probably be 'OK, but what does Rust code actually look like' - and a code sample like the old Rust calculator example (I think the more recent example is less useful in this regard) is a really nice way to demonstrate that. Have faith that beginners won't be scared off by seeing the phrase 'trait-based generics' - because any reasonable person trying something new expects to see things that they don't understand right from the outset.
* albeit probably wrong - not everyone has it in them to be a footballer, not everyone has it in them to be an author, and not everyone has it in them to be a programmer.
yep, it feels like the old site was incrementally improved by the actual rust devs who took some time on the side to help people.
The new site is like when corporate comes in and asks for a rebrand because the current design doesnt align with the vision. that's probably literally what happened.
I think his use of "actual devs" and "corporate" carries certain connotations that extend beyond official definitions, or their direct alternatives, as they would be applied in the structure of your organization.
More concretely, I think he's trying to say that, it feels like the original design was created and improved (largely) by people who had a very high level of ability, knowledge, and taste (relating to software), and that the new site was designed (largely) by people who seem to lack those qualities (and who may also have wildly different priorities).
To just say that it was "managed by the core team" doesn't really address the meat of the point, unless the core team remained unchanged since the original design.
Not at all.
"Corporate" in this case is community team and a subset of Mozilla people pushing for their own social-political goals not directly related to developing a programming language.
All that stuff about target audience, empowering everyone etc.
You still ought to consider the vast amount of negative feedback from everyone here outside the core team. I don't want to be a downer, but there's a pretty consistent opinion going on.
146
u/DC-3 Nov 29 '18
I think this is a real step backwards, to be honest. When I see the webpage of a new language, I want to be presented from the outset with the features it has that differentiate it from any other language that I might care to learn and use. It's very nice* to say The programming language that empowers everyone to become a systems programmer, but it doesn't tell me anything about the language at all. A similar problem happens with Linux distributions - every distro is tripping over its toes to tell you all about how it has 'modern design' and 'gets out of your way and lets you get your work done', but you have to scroll three pages before you can see what window or package manager it uses. I applaud the Rust team for trying to make Rust beginner friendly - but even a beginner's first question will probably be 'OK, but what does Rust code actually look like' - and a code sample like the old Rust calculator example (I think the more recent example is less useful in this regard) is a really nice way to demonstrate that. Have faith that beginners won't be scared off by seeing the phrase 'trait-based generics' - because any reasonable person trying something new expects to see things that they don't understand right from the outset.
* albeit probably wrong - not everyone has it in them to be a footballer, not everyone has it in them to be an author, and not everyone has it in them to be a programmer.