> However blanket statements like "one should not use XYZ some abstract community thinks so" to me have near zero value.
Come on, you don't believe this. How about a blanket statement like, "one should not use asbestos insulation in buildings because some oncologists think so"? Is that an "abstract statement" which we shouldn't waste time on? Don't be obtuse. Abstract best practices are valuable sometimes.
> Come to a company whose life depends on software running their business [...] and tell them [...] "rewrite it in Rust".
Obviously a full rewrite isn't typically viable. An approach where the path for new contributions is gradually pivoted to Rust can be much more practical. Google's done this with Android to the tune of a 1000x reduction in the density of memory safety vulnerabilities¹, and that matters. Android vulnerabilities can ruin lives. CrowdStrike's life depended on a piece of memory-unsafe software, and look how that turned out. Don't act like software safety & quality aren't serious concerns.
> my craft is to design and implement robust solutions for clients [...] I do not find arguing abstract concepts disregarding of particular situation having much value.
Again, imagine a housing contractor saying in response to an "abstract discussion" about asbestos insulation. Abstract concepts have concrete consequences. And don't tell me the asbestos example is too extreme, because the consequences of the CrowdStrike bug were extreme too. Software quality matters.
Come on, you don't believe this. How about a blanket statement like, "one should not use asbestos insulation in buildings because some oncologists think so"? Is that an "abstract statement" which we shouldn't waste time on? Don't be obtuse. Abstract best practices are valuable sometimes.
> Come to a company whose life depends on software running their business [...] and tell them [...] "rewrite it in Rust".
Obviously a full rewrite isn't typically viable. An approach where the path for new contributions is gradually pivoted to Rust can be much more practical. Google's done this with Android to the tune of a 1000x reduction in the density of memory safety vulnerabilities¹, and that matters. Android vulnerabilities can ruin lives. CrowdStrike's life depended on a piece of memory-unsafe software, and look how that turned out. Don't act like software safety & quality aren't serious concerns.
[1]: https://security.googleblog.com/2025/11/rust-in-android-move...
> my craft is to design and implement robust solutions for clients [...] I do not find arguing abstract concepts disregarding of particular situation having much value.
Again, imagine a housing contractor saying in response to an "abstract discussion" about asbestos insulation. Abstract concepts have concrete consequences. And don't tell me the asbestos example is too extreme, because the consequences of the CrowdStrike bug were extreme too. Software quality matters.