top | item 33656394

(no title)

1ris | 3 years ago

"Training" and "being the (allergy) the most skilled" have no connection to you? You can't be serious.

This is mincing words and a bad-faith argument. I consider this discussion pointless and will not continue.

discuss

order

optymizer|3 years ago

Just because you didn't understand my argument doesn't make it in bad faith.

If working on the Linux kernel is the training then you're measuring incidents that occur _during training_.

The whole point of training is to practice and make mistakes _before_ the actual work. Once they're considered experts, you can measure the knife cuts in their work.

yazaddaruvala|3 years ago

Have you taken the time to learn and use Rust?

Some of the first software I ever wrote was C and then C++. I’ve since worked on Billion+ line Java code bases. I’ve also worked professionally in python, ruby, Type/JavaScript.

When I picked up Rust 15 years into writing software, it taught me to write better code.

Let me repeat that: even after extensive training and professional use of other languages, rustc the compiler taught me to write better code.

If you’re looking for a “we should train people better to not make mistakes” you want people to learn software development from rustc. That training is very transferable back to C and C++ and even Java. Could this automated “teacher” be better? Sure. Could it be less strict? In certain cases sure. Is it the best training program we have? This best I’ve ever seen.

I highly recommend you at least try it! :)

1ris|3 years ago

I understand your argument. It works with starting from a massive misrepresentation of what I have said (aka bad faith). Your argument is fatally flawed due to the reason i stated. And that's why there is nothing to be said to the substance, other than what was written and this discussion was and remains over.