But no one in their right mind cares more about other people in the world more than about himself and those closest to him.

Do not underestimate the modern marketing and its capability to create needs that didn't exist before.

It is not about removing friction, it is about convincing that friction existed in a first place

> And, very certainly, you have to be able to inspect how the nails are driven and how the bricks are laid, whether your contractors are humans or robots.

As someone coming from non-software engineering (mechanical), I always believed that good engineer is capable, and sometimes does these things himself. This guarantees he actually understands his domain in all aspects.

> It just had to be decent enough to save $$$$ vs a Matlab license

And it failed at this.

I did my PhD with Octave. Sure, I did not have this nice convex optimization toolbox. But I had everything else I needed and did not need to wait because people arrived earlier in the lab and grabbed all floating licenses of, for instance, the communications toolbox.

However, I switched to Python during the last years.

Useless thing is not less useless by the virtue of being FOSS. That's something FOSS folks have yet to understand.

All the best to the author, they definitely have fun doing this, but I've seen enough of such attempts. Having agents doesn't make much difference.

People said the same thing about Linux in the 90s

Very nice, now explain what makes this fact relevant.

The difference is huge - It burns money quicker and nobody understands the code

This industry pretends to be driven by technical considerations, yet, with some exceptions, is mostly driven by fads, folk knowledge and aesthetic choices.

Folk knowledge may, and often is, grounded in reality and real experience, but let us not forget that most heated debates in programming of today are rooted mostly in tribal logic and fad chasing.

Static vs dynamic typing is a chief example. Empirical evidence that static typing makes some real difference in terms of bugs or safety is inconclusive at best. Yet it doesn't prevent some people from literally shaming those that prefer dynamic languages. Same with OOP - for years it was everywhere, now you may have an impression that it is a sin to ever use it. But now, as much as back then, there is no evidence to support claim that using or not using OOP is "one true way".

Now, memory safety is a real concern, and we can confidently say that we have found ways (exemplified in Rust) to prevent whole class of issues, but suddenly we are in the situation that every single bit of code out there is supposed to put memory safety as a chief concern, no matter if we are talking about some high perf web server, missile control logic, simple script solving Lotka-Volterra equations or simple calculator app.

Frankly, I see _a lot_ more uninformed attacks on Rust than actual Rust evangelism / snobbery. And most of these anti-Rust comments reek of personal insecurities and low-effort trolling. Like saying that Java is slow. It's getting old real quick.

It doesn't have the same kind of high quality tooling, period. People on the internet are not going around saying "look at Rust, such a young language but already has such awesome tooling like cargo, can't wait to see what we are going to have in few years from now". They just simply claim that Rust tooling is superior to anything else.

Because only thing they know are CLI-based workflows for cavemen.

See the hype about TUIs as if Turbo Vision, Clipper and ncurses never happened.

Once upon a time that was all many of us could reach for.

> claiming memory safety isn't a big deal

There are contexts where it is, there are contexts where it is not.

But suddenly everyone out there is dealing only with those context where it is.

> LLMs emitting Rust feels like building well-engineered steel skyscrapers

Oh the irony.

Good thing that real engineers cannot build their skyscrapes with LLMs.