5C5C5C

Shakespeare's collective works span virtually every genre and introduce virtually every character archetype that is still used in modern literature and media. His works are brimming with word play, which often has triple or quadruple meaning; often dramatic, philosophical, and comedic at the same time. He was so prolific and such a good writer that there are conspiracy theories that he was actually several different playwrights sharing the same pen name.

Granted it's not as easy to appreciate his works today because of how the English language has drifted over the last 500 years, but what other work of literature from 500 years ago can you even point to as being popular today in its original form?

If you want to give Shakespeare a fair shake from the literary appreciation point of view, try reading an annotated copy of his works that provide context and translate the less familiar turns of phrase. It probably won't make you enjoy reading his works, but it should at least help you understand why he's so revered.

In terms of actually enjoying Shakespeare, well... He was a playwright, not a novelist! His works are meant to be seen on a stage. There are some really good performers out there whose emotivity can help bridge the language gap. Some troupes also tweak the dialog to make it more accessible to a modem audience, but I don't generally like that because they tend to lose the puns or at least diminish the layers or the poetry.

Working for Palantir is like working for LexCorp. There's no way anyone is working there without already knowing their work is evil.

If you ever try to tell someone the publicly released undisputed facts of the Iran-Contra affair, you will come across like a conspiracy nut because what happened is so utterly absurdly criminal and yet there were virtually no consequences for anyone involved. One fall guy went to jail for a while and then came out as a Fox News correspondent.

"The famously conservative president of the United States illegally sold weapons to a radical Islamist terrorist organization in Iran (the US's mortal enemy in the middle east) and then used the proceeds to fund Central American guerrilla fighters that were also narcoterrorists? And nothing much ever came of it? Hah, as if!"

20 years ago, many of us thought George W. Bush's legacy would be that he was the most embarrassing president to ever happen to America...

Never forget that Trump is the most embarrassing president that we've ever had yet...

Champagne implies the existence of Champleasure

It says something about how sad of a state the world is in when I can't tell if this is satire or not.

One hour of being able to cook in the midst of a 12+ hour blackout can make a world of difference to hungry people.

Honestly yes. If I need to manipulate the filesystem or manage processes with any amount of conditional logic or looping, I'd much rather do it with Rust than shell scripts.

The only thing I use shell scripts for anymore is completely trivial sequences of commands.

It's much easier to fight when you don't care about what kind of damage it'll do.

I'm not saying this to defend the Democrats, just to point out that Republicans have a massive natural advantage on this stage. I don't think their success comes as much from competence as it does from being naturally aligned with doing harm.

Something about the language promotes writing it using these kinds of idioms.

As someone who has used Rust professionally for 3 years, the idioms are good. I wouldn't want the idioms to go away, and I don't particularly want the style/aesthetics of the language to change unless it can be done without negatively affecting the idioms.

It's not a situation where the aesthetics are actually bad, it's just different than what most programmers are used to, but almost all of the differences are for pretty good reasons. With enough familiarity and practice you'll start to recognize those differences as benefits of the language rather than detriments.

But I think a lot of people have so much inertia about tweaking their way of thinking that they don't feel motivated to try long enough to make it over that hump, especially when their expectations get set by rabid Rust promoters like myself who insist that Rust is vastly superior to any other languages in almost all situations. The stark contrast between how good they're told the language is and how they feel when first exposed to it might be too much whiplash for some people.

This is the most sober take in this thread. I was bothered by all these things you mentioned for the first two weeks of using the language. I begrudgingly accepted them for the following two months because I felt the benefits of the language were worth it. Now all of these things feel natural and I don't give them a second thought.

I get it there are people who want to play around and have language/compiler babysit them, but there are also people like me who want to see exactly what something is.

This is a false dichotomy when it comes to Rust. Despite everything I said and despite Lucy's complaint, there is nothing that actually stops someone from explicitly annotating the exact type when declaring a variable. It's just not required by the language, and most developers eventually realize that it's not actually useful.

You're right that these preferences are subjective, be although much of that subjectivity has more to do with how our past experiences have shaped what we're familiar with, rather than any intrinsic characteristics of person. By that I mean, someone who uses Rust enough will most likely come to like the way the general community styles its code, sooner or later. In the meantime you're welcome to do things in a way that suits your needs.

The only thing that Rust's type system is weak on is runtime reflection. There are ways to achieve it within Rust's type system, but it's considerably more work than what you get in Python and JavaScript. Imo the only reason to choose a language other than Rust for a greenfield project is if you have a strong need for runtime reflection all over the place and aren't very concerned about performance, threading, or avoiding entire categories of bugs that the Rust compiler protects you from.