I am not sure if we see the same thread. There is one reaction from "Rust" dev (who seems have a very new account on github) on why not rust. Most of the others seem to be from C# side.
The pattern also seems to be the same on reddit thread. There is one post about why not rust, equally (or more depending how you weigh) is how other people react to this news.
What is weird is how much people talk about how other people react. Modern social media is weird
There's at least 3 top-level threads criticizing the decision not to rewrite in Rust. Including a RIR banner ad posted in the replies.
Holy Language Wars are a spectator sport as old as the internet itself. It's normal to comment on one side fighting another. What's weird is pretending not to see the fighting
I do like seeing there's threads (on here and in the github page) advocating for or asking about C#, it's healthy to bring up different languages.
But, advocates for language X need to make sure they read and understand the requirements and tradeoffs, which could probably have been communicated better.
Sometimes, one case where I made use of this is enumeration of uarch for different hardware to read from the host machine.
The update for for new uarch type is closed ended until there is new cpu with new uarch, which is long time. So, for a very long time it is open-ended with very low velocity in change. It is ideal for enums (for a very long time), but you still need to support the change in list of enum variants to not break semver.
Yeah I feel that, not the entire language but, many of its choices, like error handling, sum types (with exhaustive enum matching) especially when writing in python.
Rust's design is designed to be more in the mentality of if it compiles that it is good enough, leaving less for runtime issues to occur unexpected, dictated by type and memory safety. So, it requires more type info (unless you use unidiomatic unsafe code) and talking with borrow checker. But, once you internalize its type system and borrow checker, it pays off if you care about compiler driven development (instead of dealing with errors in runtime).
The stable ABI is really tricky.
Another pointer from another talk was about how stabilizing ABI might reduce the performance hash functions (which is used by the compiler) by 0.5%.
So, it is really a tricky decision to make that involves doing the right tradeoff at the right point in time.
For me, the main solution was to apply it to another problem that uses Linear Algebra as Application, which in my case was Introductory Quantum Course and implementing BLAS using Rust and C. That way you keep thinking and using this info. Otherwise, information in vacuum seems to abstract to care about.
For me, it was introductory quantum mechanics (QM) books, you can go with MIT online course from Barton Zwiebach and online course from BLIS (This is for Rust/C implementation of BLAS). If you fall in love with QM and go for more rigorous formulation of its mathematical structure, you can follow it up with An Introduction to Hilbert Space by N. Young, which was the book used in my next semester for Hilbert Space Course.
Hilbert Space is the mathematical framework to describe QM systems.
You might enjoy "Thirty-three Miniatures" (2010) by Jiřì Matoušek. It's a collection of short applications of Linear Algebra in geometry, combinatorics and CS.
It's interesting to see someone who seems to describe themself as anti-woke try desperately to convince the generally anti-academic movement to fund academics. Sadly I don't think he'll succeed in this.
I don't agree with many of his posts but I think the blog is interesting in how personal it feels. Often I feel like all media is very cultivated but he seems very willing to put his own anxieties and foibles on the web.
FWIW, it's unclear how the NSF ends up. Musk needs scientists to make rockets go. The defense industry needs a broad spectrum of scientists to make all kinds of things happen. Scientists (and especially the schools producing said scientists) need funding to operate, or there will no longer be accredited scientists.
Does Musk understand this? Maybe not. It's not evident so far. He certainly lives in a fictional world of the right wing's devising. Will someone else be able to penetrate that bubble to make him understand it? Will he care if they do? Guess we'll find out.
Why do all schools need public money? The big ones have huge endowments, why not use those? They also make a ton of money from students. Much of it is wasted on layers of administrators, but the administrators will just fire the scientists for not bringing in grants
> For most of my professional life, this blog has been my forum, where anyone in the world could show up to raise any issue they wanted, as if we were tunic-wearing philosophers in the Athenian agora.
- Quantum Hardware is tough scale up (not impossible) due to decoherence of quantum systems, you need quantum error correction.
- Finding an application that justifies it economically (against SOTA methods in classical part) is hard except for a few areas, (Cryptography, simulation of quantum systems that are not already solved by classical simulation methods)
- Hype seems to be working (see the stock prices of several quantum companies after the announcement of Willow chip, one of which had only the word quantum in its name despite not being QC hardware company) (which I dont approve of)
A contributing factor is how complex/smart the current hardware is. It can have cache line size, different forms of hardware/software prefetching, different ports for different ops, memory latency, simd extensions. These leave many opportunities for algorithms to be optimized over. There is also the issue of real life scenarios not matching with asymptotic ones (due to e.g., size of input), which when coupled with previous factors, leads to even more potential optimization schemes. Obligatory reference: https://agner.org/optimize/
What is weird is how much people talk about how other people react. Modern social media is weird