this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2023
61 points (85.1% liked)

Programming

17671 readers
181 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities [email protected]



founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I find syntax wise, Rust is very closely bordering on esoteric. My employer is currently considering switching to Rust and I can say working in a department with a bunch of Data Scientists with varying degrees of programming experience and capability, this switch, if it happens, will probably be poorly received.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Prayers man.

We brought in a dept of data scientists when we bought a company.

I never witnessed the worse code ever.

I don't know if they were all 1y bootcamp grads or something. I thought math formulas was supposed to be elegant. But everything was written top-down, no reusability, like coding excel formulas that feed one cell into another and takes a hour or two to calculate. I nope'd so fast out of one "system" they built which was just daisychaining SQL queries into a new file that is fed into another SQL query repeat 7 times.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Mathematicians and scientists are notoriously awful programmers. They get shit done but with absolutely 0 regard to good practices and reusability.

[–] coloredgrayscale 2 points 1 year ago

Would have thought mathematicians would be slightly better at writing functions

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's kind of like hiring a bunch of physicists to design a bridge. It'll probably be a great bridge, but also probably overly complex, expensive and late. And for some reason made out of a novel alloy.

[–] UFODivebomb 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I've experienced similar.

One thing that helped: separating research code from production.

Research is to answer a decision problem and much of the optimization problems that are in software engineering do not, and should not, apply.

Once the research problem is answered. Reproducing that answer with production quality systems should be it's own project. This also serves as a reproduction of the science in the research. Satisfying that hallmark of the scientific method.

Course, getting a company to agree to such an arrangement is near impossible. Especially if they have never been crippled by the mismatch expectations of putting research code in production.

As that is an organizational problem not just an engineering problem, good luck convincing management.

An alternative, if I can't get such an arrangement is the building a platform that supports integration of research code. That can be... uh... hard. Aside from the people challenges not all tech can support such a platform.

[–] zygo_histo_morpheus 4 points 1 year ago

What's esoteric about Rusts syntax? I can't relate at all, but maybe I had just the right background of languages commin into Rust.

[–] thisisnotgoingwell 3 points 1 year ago

Bruh on one post people are bandwagoning rust and then on another post people calling it esoteric 🤣 hard to see what's what past the hype. I mostly code in Python though so I might need to find out for myself