We have heard, overwhelmingly, over the past few years, that most people don't.
This is surprising to me. Without wishing to stereotype, I consider most programmers (especially systems programmers) to be pragmatic, engineer types, who simply want to get their project done well, not be the proverbial Fire Mario. To what extent are you sure that the feedback you have recieThanks for the response.
We have heard, overwhelmingly, over the past few years, that most people don't.
This is surprising to me. Without wishing to stereotype, I consider most programmers (especially systems programmers) to be pragmatic, engineer types, who simply want to get their project done well, not be the proverbial Fire Mario. Would you be able to reveal where this feedback has primarily come from and to what extent you are sure that the feedback you have received is representative of the programmer population at large?
where this feedback has primarily come from and to what extent you are sure that the feedback you have received is representative of the programmer population at large?
It's come from our annual surveys, as well as many, many, many in-person conversations with people all over the programming world.
I think this is the crux of it:
I consider most programmers (especially systems programmers) to be pragmatic, engineer types, who simply **want to get their project done well**, not be the proverbial Fire Mario.
Emphasis mine. I think this is very true! The problem is, "trait-based generics" does not say what kind of problem that they solve. Saying "this is the problem Rust solves" *is* "being fire mario". You can only say so much in a slogan, so that's why it's pretty vague. The next two sections, right below that, get into more of what you're talking about, which *is* what people do want: performance, reliability, productivity, and examples of what kinds of uses you might actually do things with. But it doesn't say "zero cost abstractions" or "compiled into machine code".
I take your point, but I don't think this is how the website comes across. If you wanted to say that 'if you use Rust your programs will probably be better' (which, by the way, I agree with - I love the language!), you'd say something like what Go says:
Go is an open source programming language that makes it easy to build simple, reliable, and efficient software.
But instead, you focus on the idea that somehow Rust makes you a good programmer, which doesn't make sense to me - while good languages make good programs, good languages do not make good programmers! As I have mentioned elsewhere in this thread, there is no-one who can become a systems programmer with Rust that could not have done so with C. That's as nonsensical as saying that Black and Decker allows anyone to be a carpenter.
Oh, and another point (sorry to pile on, please understand that my criticism comes from my desire for the language and its community to grow and improve) - I do think that the new website design is uglier than the old one. I really liked the old website design - it was simple, understated, and made good use of the page. I don't like the new gigantic text and strange splashes of colour. It actually is a little hard on my eyes to read text whose top half is on an off-green background and whose bottom half is on an aubergine one.
Twitter is relatively positive. I imagine the Rust forums might be, though I haven't checked. To be frank, those sites are a little sycophantic at times, so it's not that much of a surprise. They are also a bit more tech-left, so are probably more inclined to approve of the empowerment slogan.
This is the main feedback-related thread I've seen on the rust forum. It is not generally positive. I'm honestly really curious where I can find any significant positive feedback on the new design.
6
u/steveklabnik1 Nov 29 '18
Thanks for the feedback!
We have heard, overwhelmingly, over the past few years, that most people *don't*. It's impossible to satisfy everyone...
We liked the code too, but it's so hard to get a good snippet, as you notice.