4 ms·
If you don't have many languages under your belt (and wanting to spend 3-4 months and asking for advice what to choose suggests that), you don't really want to
by dozzie 11y ago
If you don't have many languages under your belt (and wanting to spend 3-4
months and asking for advice what to choose suggests that), you don't really
want to go with a language that popped semi-stable only several months ago,
hence will be most probably a subject to deep changes (either in the language
itself or in standard library). Rust is not (yet) the way to go.
- krylon 11y ago> Rust is not (yet) the way to go. Not sure if that was intended, but that was one epic pun!
- steveklabnik 11y agoRust is more than semi-stable: we take backwards compatibility very seriously. It will not be subject to deep changes from here on out, or at least, those changes will not break existing things.
- dozzie 11y ago> we take backwards compatibility very seriously. You're yet to display that. Half a year is too short time to give that confidence.
- steveklabnik 11y agoTheres two components of "display that": process and follow through. On the first point, we've set up a lot of tools and process to deal with stability, including testing releases against all open source code in existence. It's not perfect, but it does demonstrate commitment. The second is the actual follow through. Due to said tools, we can calculate exactly how good we've done at it: so far, it's something like 97% of all code that was ever published still builds with 1.5. I'm on mobile so I don't have the real number on me. And that breakage was due to soundness updates, which we introduce over multiple releases, starting with warnings, so there's time to adapt. Yes, it's early days, but that doesn't mean that you can't say anything.