Comment by zoogeny

10 months ago

I would argue the second.

I think it is a human trait to like to win arguments. In some card games, there is a thing called a trump card [1]. The trump card has this special ability to beat all other cards.

Rust has a kind of trump card: memory safety. If you get in an argument about code it is often possible to maneuver the argument in the direction of memory safety at which point the Rust advocate gets to default win the discussion.

I think this "trump card" aspect attracts a particular kind of person to advocate for Rust simply because they like to feel technically superior to others. Whenever they are in an argument, no matter what the context, they simply have to play the game: how can I make this technical argument about memory safety so that I can win by default.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_(card_games)

2 comments

zoogeny

Reply
aleph_minus_one  10 months ago

This perspective just shifts the problem one meta-layer up: one side (Rust advocates) considers compiler-enforced memory safety to be a trump card, while the other side does not. So side A is "right" because they have the trump card who they played, but side B is also "right" in that they don't consider the stupid card that side A played to be a trump. The rest is drama.

Thus, instead of drama, we get meta-drama, i.e. nothing has changed.

rc00  10 months ago

“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain