I agree that your previous comment could be shorter, maybe half as long, with some effort. For example, this sentence could just be removed without changing the content or tone:
> But I think this is an interesting perspective difference to discuss and not a blatant ad hom argument used to ‘fight’ Rust users on the internet.
(It is already clear that you share your perspective because you think that it's interesting and not a fallacy.)
Then, there are some paragraphs close to the end that seem to repeat ideas.
But IMHO it's a good, nuanced comment that both addresses shortcomings in current discourse and adds ideas to the discussion. This is obviously difficult to do in few words.
A few concepts that come to mind from your comment, but I missed from others:
- Are Rust-style ownership semantics complex or just hard for me? Is it an issue of familiarity only? Is it ergonomics?
- Are they hard in general or just due to the way I like to program? How can I change my style to better fit the model?
- Are they even fit for the software I write? i.e. is it worth it to change how I program to better fit the model?
- What other tools are there to deal with resources?
- What could a programming language do to offer multiple of those? How can we mix GC, region types, linear/uniqueness types, manual management, etc. in a single language?
- A bunch of stuff about discourse in this thread and HN/the internet in general (which is maybe not the point of the comment and could be omitted?)
The TL;DR was exhaustion and medication make me chatty. I didn’t realize how long the comment was until I got back on just now.
I agree that your previous comment could be shorter, maybe half as long, with some effort. For example, this sentence could just be removed without changing the content or tone:
> But I think this is an interesting perspective difference to discuss and not a blatant ad hom argument used to ‘fight’ Rust users on the internet.
(It is already clear that you share your perspective because you think that it's interesting and not a fallacy.)
Then, there are some paragraphs close to the end that seem to repeat ideas.
But IMHO it's a good, nuanced comment that both addresses shortcomings in current discourse and adds ideas to the discussion. This is obviously difficult to do in few words.
A few concepts that come to mind from your comment, but I missed from others:
- Are Rust-style ownership semantics complex or just hard for me? Is it an issue of familiarity only? Is it ergonomics?
- Are they hard in general or just due to the way I like to program? How can I change my style to better fit the model?
- Are they even fit for the software I write? i.e. is it worth it to change how I program to better fit the model?
- What other tools are there to deal with resources?
- What could a programming language do to offer multiple of those? How can we mix GC, region types, linear/uniqueness types, manual management, etc. in a single language?
- A bunch of stuff about discourse in this thread and HN/the internet in general (which is maybe not the point of the comment and could be omitted?)