It’s not just about learning a language. Given two equivalent languages, writing a project using one or the other is always going to be less work and less of a maintenance burden than writing it using both. A competent manager will take that into account when deciding what tools to use. On top of that, learning a new language has a cost. Of course Rust and JavaScript are not equivalent, but which one is ‘better’ is highly subjective and dependent on how you measure ‘better’. So a manager needs to take that into account. But my fundamental point is that using two languages for a project adds overhead, and learning a language adds overhead, so unless cost (including time) is irrelevant, there must be a compelling reason to choose a dual-language solution* over a single-language solution, and to chose a solution that requires your devs to learn a new language over one that does not. Not to mention switching platforms has a massive cost if your project is already mature. Even if you’re creating a new project, if your team already knows JavaScript and doesn’t have any particular objection to Electron, there’s no compelling reason.

If there is a good reason to learn a language then people will.

Sure. Except in my experience interviewing candidates and from what I’ve seen online, there are a lot of developers out there who aren’t very good. I am not optimistic that the average developer will have an easy time learning a new language. If the “we” in “Is this the electron alternative we’ve been waiting for” is you and I, that’s not a problem. But if OP meant to suggest there will be a large-scale shift away from Electron, then the average developer is quite relevant.

*As someone else pointed out, Dioxus is designed with the intent that you’ll right the frontend in Rust, so it’s not exactly dual-language like I thought.

Ah, well that’s great for folks who already know or want to learn Rust

I seriously doubt that a dual-language platform is ever going to supplant Electron. Electron has the major advantage that the entire app is written in one language. And according to Stack Overflow’s 2023 developer survey, 66% of devs use JavaScript, 45% use Python, 43% use TypeScript, and 12% use Rust. More devs use Java, C#, C++, PHP, and C than Rust. So 2/3 of developers wouldn’t have to learn a new language to use Electron, and only a small fraction of the remainder knows Rust.

If I designed the schema it is most certainly going to be structured. Unstructured databases are awful.

Sure, there are worse languages and environments to get stuck with. But I can avoid those jobs. And if I get hired as a SomeLang developer and they force me to work in Java or whatever, it’s time to dust off the resume.

I am aware of that, but Java is the most popular language that runs on the JVM. I don’t specifically dislike other JVM languages, though one of my issues is type erasure and that’s partially a limitation of the JVM.

Obviously OpenJDK is superior to dealing with Oracle’s bull. But even more superior (IMO) is simply not using Java. My life has been noticeably more pleasant since I started refusing to touch Java.

You consider calculating the hash of a few bytes to be heavy lifting?

just use await in an async function.

Sure, I’ll just put await and async everywhere. Oh wait, I can’t. A constructor can’t be async so now I need to restructure my code to use async factories instead of constructors. Wonderful…

async/await infecting all of my code, being unable to create a get myField() method that involves a hash calculation. It may be standard to do heavy lifting concurrently, but async hash functions are certainly not standard in any of the languages I’ve used (which is quite a few).

That seems like a good guess, I can see why async hashing could be useful. But it would be nice if there was an alternative API that was blocking so my code wouldn’t get infected with async/await all over the place…

So you’re arguing that “Object oriented” shouldn’t apply to languages that are oriented around objects?

Of course, but OOP is typically about putting methods on classes, inheritance of behaviour etc.

You’re referring to one subtype of OOP. That may be what most people mean when they say OOP, but that doesn’t make it correct. Object-oriented programming is programming with objects, which does not require inheritance or classes.

I’ve done a little bit of Python in the past, the biggest thing being an automation task that borderline became an app. I certainly can imagine using it for scripts, though I default to bash because that’s almost always available but TBH mostly because inertia. Beyond that my default is Go because inertia (and I love Go). I watched a video by the Primeagen (on YT) - in his view, Rust is better for text/data pipelines and CLI tools. Being very familiar with Go and not at all familiar with Rust, that’s an interesting take because honestly writing a CLI in Go is kind of meh.

so you have to catch all exceptions then do extra work to tell what the specific situation is

That’s horrifying. That’s a solid reason to avoid Python like the plague.

For references within a scope, you’re probably right. For references that cross scope boundaries (i.e. function parameters), they necessarily must consume memory (or a register). Passing a parameter to a function call consumes memory or a register by definition. If a function call is inlined, that means its instructions are copy-pasted to the call location so there’s no actual call in the compiled code.

Making good UX is fucking hard. I say UX because making it good is really about the user’s experience, not graphic design. An ugly front end can be good if it’s intuitive and easy to use. But a visually gorgeous front end will still be garbage if it’s clunky and confusing.

It’s really something you have to experience to fully understand. Ultimately it comes down to this: front ends have to deal with people, backends only have to deal with computers. So backends can be cleanly organized and well structured. Applying backend design principles to a front end will get you a CRUD interface - something that’s usable but no one really wants to use.

“Flagged as spam”, “Publication Not Available”. I can’t see the article.

True, but if you read the article the point is clearly not about source code vs non-source configuration. There’s an implicit assumption that source code is something the developer will be modifying as time goes on, but the real point is, “Don’t make users merge changes.”

I think the author’s primary point is, “Merging changes sucks, don’t make your users do that,” with a corollary: if your program loads configuration from a directory that is only populated by the user, there’s nothing to merge and thus never any merge conflicts. Case in point: /etc/polkit-1/rules.d. I can add whatever rules files I want in there and they’re never going to conflict when I update. If PolKit makes breaking changes to the format, it will log errors somewhere and I can look at those errors, look at my rules, and figure out how to fix them. That’s a hell of a lot easier than merging conflicting changes to code/configuration.