I would teach Typescript. Being able to write the types down and hover things to see what types they are will definitely help them.
I think C would put them off. I also wouldn't go with Python, in case they want to do things like write games or make websites, which are common tasks you can do with Typescript but not very well with Python.
How are those namespaces getting on?
So if you're important you can be an arsehole.
TL;DR: yes.
The article said it pretty well:
if your answer to any perceived failing in a person is “just try harder”, you are either woefully inexperienced or a just a dick
That applies to writing impossibly comprehensive unit tests too.
Though really for a filesystem they should really do silicon-style verification (which we're calling Deterministic System Testing now).
That's cool, but in my experience if you get to the OOM killer then 80% of the time it's too late and your system is basically dead. My laptop hard reboots most of the time when this happens.
Hopefully it works with the early-OOM hacks.
Looks nice. Well as far as I can tell anyway. Maybe next time you're showing off a GUI don't make the screenshots 320x240?
Anyone know what toolkit they are using? As far as I know none of the Rust GUI toolkits are close to mature.
Edit: it's iced.
Your manager is an idiot.
I totally agree, though I think it's worth adding:
The advantages of static types is not just finding bugs (though it does do that quite well). It also massively helps with productivity because a) types are now documented, b) you can use code intelligence tools like renaming variables, go-to-definition, find-references, etc. (assuming you use a good editor/IDE).
In general stronger types are better but I do think there is a point at which the effort of getting the types right is too high to be worth the benefit. I would say Rust hasn't reached that point, but if you look at formal verification languages like Dafny, it's pretty clear that you wouldn't want to use that except in extreme circumstances. Similarly I think the ability to use an any or dynamic escape hatch is quite useful, even if it should be used very sparingly.
Really? I might have agreed for some other languages, but Go is so bare bones it feels like it takes way longer to write simple stuff than with Rust - you have to tediously write out loops all the time for example.
Tbf I haven't used it since it got generics. Maybe it is better now.
These long confusing errors are near universal in languages / libraries that have complex types. You get the same thing in C++ code that uses template metaprogramming e.g. Eigen.
It is quite annoying but I don't really know of a solution other than using a library that doesn't express full expressions as types.
Chumsky does something similar but it also has a .boxed() modifier you can use to type erase the types at strategic points to keep them a manageable size. I believe Xylem is going to do the same with its statically typed widget tree. Maybe Diesel offers something like that?
This is nonsense. Old software was not fast. Computers used to take minutes to start up. That's not an exaggeration. MS Word could easily take 30 seconds to open.
Obviously if you run it on modern hardware it's going to be lightning fast, but not because the authors cared more about performance and efficiency than we do now.