6 ms·

Well even a guesstimate would be nice :) I've been following Rust from sidelines before 1.0 and from my perspective there are advantages but I can also see a l

Well even a guesstimate would be nice :) I've been following Rust from sidelines before 1.0 and from my perspective there are advantages but I can also see a lot of pain in porting stuff and moving over and I right now the benefits don't outweigh the risk and cost for me - but having a fast build system (which implies incremental recompilation) along with a default package manager (which it already has) would be enough for me to start working with it seriously. It's kind of sad that building code is such an instrumental part of developing C++ when it's just about dealing with technical issues of the compiler/language/tools and not the problems I'm trying to solve - anything that gets me away from that while leaving me with similar level of memory control and portability is a big win for me. So when should I be looking back at it ? 6 months ?

sanxiyn 11y ago
If you want a guess, I guess "in 2016".
steveklabnik 11y ago
There's two components to this. I just asked the relevant people, they said "Six months is a safe guess, we hope sooner, we have ambitious plans, we'll see." However, there's also something mentioned in this announcement: cargo-check. In terms of the "I'm building a project and I don't want my builds to be slow," I think that cargo-check might even be more important. cargo-check relies on an important insight: many times, when you're compiling, you don't actually care about producing a binary, you care that your code passes typechecking and other passes. cargo-check basically runs those things, and doesn't produce the final binary. Makes sense?
- sudeepj 11y ago
  Is this something which the editor plugins can make use of? (as a quick lint/feedback about the code). My guess is that the plugins actually use naked rustc call rather than cargo build.
  - steveklabnik 11y ago
    Currently, it basically runs `rust -Zverbose -Zno-trans`, so yes. If it gets more advanced, we'll see.
mahyarm 11y ago
What would make you choose swift vs rust at this point? The compile speeds have been getting pretty close to objective-c levels, there is 1st and 3rd party package management and its been recently open sourced and is actually being developed in the open. On top of that they have the financial backing of apple.
- moonchrome 11y ago
  Does Swift run on Windows ? Emscripten ? Android ? Portability is also a big question that Rust has a lot better incentives to solve than Apple. I got the impression that Linux support is more of a "here iOS/OSX develoeprs - we're aware you don't actually run OSX on your servers so you can share code between client and server now". I was not aware Apple wants to push Swift as a cross platform language. If it was and their commitment looked credible (ie. they start porting tools like integrating debuggers and stuff on other platforms as well) I would definitely consider it.

sanxiyn 11y ago

If you want a guess, I guess "in 2016".

steveklabnik 11y ago

There's two components to this. I just asked the relevant people, they said "Six months is a safe guess, we hope sooner, we have ambitious plans, we'll see." However, there's also something mentioned in this announcement: cargo-check. In terms of the "I'm building a project and I don't want my builds to be slow," I think that cargo-check might even be more important. cargo-check relies on an important insight: many times, when you're compiling, you don't actually care about producing a binary, you care that your code passes typechecking and other passes. cargo-check basically runs those things, and doesn't produce the final binary. Makes sense?

sudeepj 11y ago
Is this something which the editor plugins can make use of? (as a quick lint/feedback about the code). My guess is that the plugins actually use naked rustc call rather than cargo build.
- steveklabnik 11y ago
  Currently, it basically runs `rust -Zverbose -Zno-trans`, so yes. If it gets more advanced, we'll see.

mahyarm 11y ago

What would make you choose swift vs rust at this point? The compile speeds have been getting pretty close to objective-c levels, there is 1st and 3rd party package management and its been recently open sourced and is actually being developed in the open. On top of that they have the financial backing of apple.

moonchrome 11y ago
Does Swift run on Windows ? Emscripten ? Android ? Portability is also a big question that Rust has a lot better incentives to solve than Apple. I got the impression that Linux support is more of a "here iOS/OSX develoeprs - we're aware you don't actually run OSX on your servers so you can share code between client and server now". I was not aware Apple wants to push Swift as a cross platform language. If it was and their commitment looked credible (ie. they start porting tools like integrating debuggers and stuff on other platforms as well) I would definitely consider it.