> "New programs should not be in C++" means, exactly, "You should be laid off so they can hire me instead".

That strikes me as wrong in many ways. I think it means, exactly - "new programs should use a different language than C++".

I someone writing that might have been implying "hire me instead", but given the specific author is CTO of azure, i doubt they are angling for your job, or really any dev job.

Managers hearing this advice from the CTO of could possibly interpret it as "lay off our C++ folks, we're hiring for rust". Or they could interpret it as:

* We should switch to the new language, have the team train up.

* We should have the team start evaluating new languages (or rust specifically).

* We hire some rust folks for the next project to evaluate how it goes.

Any half-way decent management will know that the institutional knowledge in their existing dev team is worth a lot, and getting the new hires up to speed is rather expensive.

Sure crap management exists, but I've never had, nor known any who has had management so bad that they would lay off thier whole dev team over a tweet. I really doubt "lay off all the C++ folks" would be a particularly common response.

The topic in this subthread is overbearing Rust evangelists and their effects.

To the degree that management pays them any attention -- and a CTO parroting their advocacy in tweets (squawks?) certainly counts -- the threat is real. Other companies' management may be equally affected, in a degree more than just posting idle-hack tweets.

Against, the subthread topic is overbearing Rust advocates and, specifically, what harm they can do. Obviously nobody will "lay off all the C++ folks" just because Rust promoters would really like that, and as much as say so. But that is very far from saying no harm is done, or that no one is harmed by their extremist rhetoric.

> Obviously nobody will "lay off all the C++ folks" just because Rust promoters would really like that, and as much as say so

1. If it was so obvious, why did you claim it to be true, and then double down?

2. I have yet to see anyone say or even strongly imply it. The closest I've seen is this thread wherein you take a lot of leaps in reasoning and a very specific path through a large possibility space to divine the true intent of a simple sentence.

It is one thing for people to advocate a thing, such as "you should fire all your C++ staff and hire us", and another thing for my employer to obey.

But that difference does not make advocating it less bad, unless they are obviously speaking facetiously and expect it to have no effect. It is very clear people saying it mean it and want that to happen.

Azure CTO's announcement is a success for that advocacy.

I think you are delusional. No one is advocating for your firing. "NEW projects" is not "all projects ever existing". Just like cobol is still there and running decades after it was first considered a dead language. Even after new projects were all being written in java, the cobol programmers were there. They switched languages, or kept working in cobol. There are still new cobol programmers in 2022.

Even if every C++ codebase wanted to rewrite itself in rust that effort would take decades and in the mean time we'd still need C++ devs.

The only people advocating for firing C++ all devs are the imaginary ones in your head.

Have you even used Rust? Based on your other comments, it just seems like you have an axe to grind against anyone who uses Rust, coming up with accusations of "Rust devs trying to take 'er jerbs"

I like Rust fine. But Rust is not suitable for my work, where C++ is.

So, anyone saying "no programs should be written in C++" is saying, exactly, that I should not be able to do my work, and that I should not have employment.

That my current employer will not necessarily obey such an instruction does not make the attempt any the less offensive.

It's finally clear - You don't actually think that people are advocating for you to be fired[1]. You are just taking an absurd extreme position because after a career of not having to think too much about other languages something comes along that can actually threaten the C++ crown. Now you are worried that you'll be relegated to the niches along with your language, like assembler and cobol. Don't worry - there'll be room for you there even as C++ fades away: you can stay in the niches, or you can maintain the mountains of existing C++ code, or you can evolve and move forward with the rest of us.

You are a great case study in why the rest of us shouldn't comingle our identities with the identities of our tools.

[1] I did note that you changed it from "no new projects" to "no programs" a dirty trick that I'm only going to address by pointing it out.

Try to explain the difference between "no new projects" and "no programs". Any program I have not written yet would be a new project. Any old project is one where the program has already been written.

So you are being dishonest in pretending to a distinction without a difference.

Switching from the legitimate "you should use my new language because it is good" to "you should demote everybody coding <otherlang> to legacy maintenance, and put us in their place" admits a very ugly fact about yourselves and about your beliefs about your language's legitimate prospects.

If you believed it deserves a place on its own merits, you would not be trying to tear down other languages to try to make a hole for it. It is disgraceful behavior.

You should be ashamed of that, and you should be more ashamed of calling people who object "delusional".

> Any program I have not written yet would be a new project. Any old project is one where the program has already been written.

That is simply not any definition I've ever heard for a new project. You are assuming a binary of written or not written, and yet there are codebases that are incompletely written. That is what the parent means about ongoing projects that wouldn't migrate to Rust where you'd still be able to work on them, and who knows, maybe Rust won't overtake C++ and it'll continue, like many C projects have.

But that you have made yourself a "C++ developer," and not a developer in general who solves problems with whatever tool is best, does mean that whenever something comes along that threatens your identity, you seem to take it to absurdity, as the parent says.

You have already revealed your true colors.