> You'd have to re-negotiate every time you work with a new client. Are they on 9-5? Or 10-6? When can we schedule that weekly call? Businesses have no incentive to go through this headache, so they won't.
My experience is that these meeting coordinations still have to happen. Even within your own company, in the same office building.
> There's few companies that are in the market for 3 star Michelin style software.
I’ve been in the industry for almost 20 years, and been part of startups and worked at FAANGs, but I’ve never experienced a company have that mindset.
My experience has been that individual engineers are the ones that have that mindset and if two or more coincidentally get to work on the same project, the strive for excellence flourishes across the team and sometimes beyond. But it’s a very fragile ecosystem that can be disrupted by an eager management.
Rust has so much syntax for similar semantics that reading rust code is insanely difficult. Even well written Rust can obfuscate intent or details about the implementation when read due to the syntax being terse and broad.
Also, Rust doesn't let you do all of the same things C does without using "unsafe", even if they're perfectly safe. Even with all of that syntax, you're still incapable of telling the rust compiler enough information to allow you to compile certain programs.
For example, in a single threaded Tokio application, shared state across coroutines still requires a 1) heal allocated 2) reference counted 3) mutex protected reference to the state, otherwise Rust won't let you compile even though it would be completely safe to pass around a single stack-allocated reference.
Perhaps I was missing something simple but it was the only way the compiler was happy and seemed to be the only way anyone has gotten it to work.
Unsafe doesn't mean unsafe. It means not provably safe by the compiler. That matters on large code bases, or as code ages and has multiple contributors. Keeping dangerous security bugs out of C is very difficult under those circumstances, but in Rust you can largely trust the compiler and can easily search for all uses of "unsafe" and audit them.
Yes but if you do much low level it is annoying to use a language that constant treats you at best as a dark magic wizard, at worst as a dangerous risk seeker.
All my point was that Rust is not a substitute for C, too heavy and complex and not enough liberating for low level "assembly-wrapping" stuff.
The concept of unsafe language constructs are about 10 years older than C's birthdate, written in different forms, lowercase, uppercase, special module to be imported, whatever, all ignored by C's authors.
As for C being low level "assembly-wrapping" stuff, yeah when all you have is a PDP-11 clone.
I’m not aware of the actual process they had, but it is likely they actually replaced or aided with the replacement.
I’m guessing the experience wasn’t some type of swatting, where the GeekSquad loudly breaks in at 4 AM with flash bangs, shouting “WHERE’S THE ROUTER, WHERE’S THE ROUTER!”.
In this scenario, the second elevator isn’t centered between the first and the third elevators.
If I understand the description properly, the layout may be something like this:
[]__[]____[]