4 ms·
I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Rust is designed for a specific market, and it sounds like you aren't part of it.
by ntonozzi 10y ago
I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Rust is designed for a specific market, and it sounds like you aren't part of it.
- weberc2 10y agoI agree; but I think I'm still allowed to be disappointed that my use cases aren't a good fit for so thoroughly-heralded a language. :)
- MichaelGG 10y agoDon't be disappointed. If you don't need the performance Rust offers, then use another ML-ish language. More expressiveness, none of the ownership issues (just GC).
- weberc2 10y agoWhich would you recommend for someone who prefers a C-like syntax, a good concurrency story, a comprehensive standard library, Java-esque speed, and dead-simple tooling (e.g., Go's tooling), and compilation to a static binary?
- MichaelGG 10y agoC# and F# can both compile to a static binary (Mono's AOT compiler), and meet your other requirements. I find it curious that "safety" wasn't one of the points. If you're looking for C-like though, you are probably not in any modern-featured language designer's aim.
- weberc2 10y ago> I find it curious that "safety" wasn't one of the points It was implied by the context of "ML" languages. That was my intention at least; I thought ML languages were characteristically safe. Regarding "C-like", I mostly mean syntax. I'm not too familiar with the ML family, but many FP languages have bizarre syntax which amplifies the difficulty of learning new concepts IMO.