4 ms·

> companies that write code for infrastructure or machines that need to rung a looong time won't ever trust a language (and toolchain) that comes in versions an

> companies that write code for infrastructure or machines that need to rung a looong time won't ever trust a language (and toolchain) that comes in versions and not in IEEE standards The Rust team has a very high commitment to stability, and does way more to maintain stability than any other language/compiler I know of (by testing new versions and potentially-breaking-changes against the entire ecosystem) > still don't (seem) to understand the non technical problems it has. Just because multiple implementations of Rust don't exist (there are a couple but nothing 100% feature complete iirc) doesn't mean that the community doesn't understand the need for it. Alternate implementations are hard to write and take time. The language is still new, but work is being done towards speccing it (e.g. the unsafe code semantics work being done right now). Note that most languages have gone for years without getting a proper spec or alternate implementations. This is an advantage C has over Rust, agreed. It's usually not a dealbreaker, though.

S_I 10y ago
>The Rust team has a very high commitment to stability, and does way more to maintain stability than any other language/compiler I know of (by testing new versions and potentially-breaking-changes against the entire ecosystem) Yes, but my experience is that they don't seem to manage generating the kind of trust needed to get my peers to give it a serious go. It's a purely social and subjective problem. >Just because multiple implementations of Rust don't exist (there are a couple but nothing 100% feature complete iirc) doesn't mean that the community doesn't understand the need for it. As i said, it SEEMS to be so. That means that it is a subjective impression my colleagues and me get. It is the job of the community to generate trust, not the (potential) user's. >Alternate implementations are hard to write and take time. Yes, see my P.S. Time will tell if it's worth it to compiler vendors. C made it easy for them right from the start. >Note that most languages have gone for years without getting a proper spec or alternate implementations. This is an advantage C has over Rust, agreed. It's usually not a dealbreaker, though. Not a dealbreaker for whom? In the infrastructure and big machine business you will see C, some C++ and Ada. All standardized. If the Rust community wants to offer an alternative for C, C++ and Ada, AND want Rust to succeed as an alternative, they need to understand that trust (in the toolchain) is generated in different ways in different industries.
- Manishearth 10y ago
  > Not a dealbreaker for whom? In the infrastructure and big machine business you will see C, some C++ and Ada. All standardized. Sure, there will be some cases where you absolutely need a standardized language. And Rust won't work there for a while at least. But that's a far cry from the picture painted in the original post.
  - S_I 10y ago
    >And Rust won't work there for a while at least. Yes, and that is why those industries will choose to ignore it for a while at least. Chicken and egg.
    - Manishearth 10y ago
      It's not a chicken and egg. Like I said, the Rust team does want to make this happen (and is already doing so from the specification side, though I suspect multiple implementations will come from elsewhere since we already have a couple partial ones). Rust already has lots of folks from other industries trying to use it -- there's plenty of momentum for it to get there. It will take time, but it's not like Rust will never get there without support from the industries you mention (which would be a chicken and egg problem)
      - S_I 10y ago
        Until this happens i will remain skeptical if the Rust community can pull it off without the backing of said industries. On the other i like being proven wrong. Time will tell. > though I suspect multiple implementations will come from elsewhere since we already have a couple partial ones) >Rust already has lots of folks from other industries trying to use it I'm not up to date. Input would be appreciated here.
        Manishearth 10y ago
        As for alternate implementations, https://github.com/thepowersgang/mrustc https://github.com/thepowersgang/mrustc . As for specification, https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1643 https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1643 is what's currently happening, i.e. specifying exactly how unsafe code behaves (this is more important than specifying the rest). But the rest will come. As for the industry, https://www.rust-lang.org/friends.html https://www.rust-lang.org/friends.html
banachtarski 10y ago
> The Rust team has a very high commitment to stability, and does way more to maintain stability than any other language/compiler I know of (by testing new versions and potentially-breaking-changes against the entire ecosystem) I'm all for this but I really don't see how Rust's stability can hold a candle to the international standards committees that govern C and C++ (not to mention the investment from the big tech companies in developing and implementing these standards)
- Manishearth 10y ago
  > I'm all for this but I really don't see how Rust's stability can hold a candle to the international standards committees that govern C and C++ (not to mention the investment from the big tech companies in developing and implementing these standards) That's an orthogonal issue; that's adoption. More adoption means more stability, regardless of whether or not the thing has a standards committee. Of course Rust can't hold a candle to the level of adoption C has.
- TheCoelacanth 10y ago
  Rust is far more stable than C was six years into it's life. It hasn't caught up with C yet, but C had a 38 year head-start.

S_I 10y ago

>The Rust team has a very high commitment to stability, and does way more to maintain stability than any other language/compiler I know of (by testing new versions and potentially-breaking-changes against the entire ecosystem) Yes, but my experience is that they don't seem to manage generating the kind of trust needed to get my peers to give it a serious go. It's a purely social and subjective problem. >Just because multiple implementations of Rust don't exist (there are a couple but nothing 100% feature complete iirc) doesn't mean that the community doesn't understand the need for it. As i said, it SEEMS to be so. That means that it is a subjective impression my colleagues and me get. It is the job of the community to generate trust, not the (potential) user's. >Alternate implementations are hard to write and take time. Yes, see my P.S. Time will tell if it's worth it to compiler vendors. C made it easy for them right from the start. >Note that most languages have gone for years without getting a proper spec or alternate implementations. This is an advantage C has over Rust, agreed. It's usually not a dealbreaker, though. Not a dealbreaker for whom? In the infrastructure and big machine business you will see C, some C++ and Ada. All standardized. If the Rust community wants to offer an alternative for C, C++ and Ada, AND want Rust to succeed as an alternative, they need to understand that trust (in the toolchain) is generated in different ways in different industries.

Manishearth 10y ago
> Not a dealbreaker for whom? In the infrastructure and big machine business you will see C, some C++ and Ada. All standardized. Sure, there will be some cases where you absolutely need a standardized language. And Rust won't work there for a while at least. But that's a far cry from the picture painted in the original post.
- S_I 10y ago
  >And Rust won't work there for a while at least. Yes, and that is why those industries will choose to ignore it for a while at least. Chicken and egg.
  - Manishearth 10y ago
    It's not a chicken and egg. Like I said, the Rust team does want to make this happen (and is already doing so from the specification side, though I suspect multiple implementations will come from elsewhere since we already have a couple partial ones). Rust already has lots of folks from other industries trying to use it -- there's plenty of momentum for it to get there. It will take time, but it's not like Rust will never get there without support from the industries you mention (which would be a chicken and egg problem)
    - S_I 10y ago
      Until this happens i will remain skeptical if the Rust community can pull it off without the backing of said industries. On the other i like being proven wrong. Time will tell. > though I suspect multiple implementations will come from elsewhere since we already have a couple partial ones) >Rust already has lots of folks from other industries trying to use it I'm not up to date. Input would be appreciated here.
      - Manishearth 10y ago
        As for alternate implementations, https://github.com/thepowersgang/mrustc https://github.com/thepowersgang/mrustc . As for specification, https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1643 https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1643 is what's currently happening, i.e. specifying exactly how unsafe code behaves (this is more important than specifying the rest). But the rest will come. As for the industry, https://www.rust-lang.org/friends.html https://www.rust-lang.org/friends.html

banachtarski 10y ago

> The Rust team has a very high commitment to stability, and does way more to maintain stability than any other language/compiler I know of (by testing new versions and potentially-breaking-changes against the entire ecosystem) I'm all for this but I really don't see how Rust's stability can hold a candle to the international standards committees that govern C and C++ (not to mention the investment from the big tech companies in developing and implementing these standards)

Manishearth 10y ago
> I'm all for this but I really don't see how Rust's stability can hold a candle to the international standards committees that govern C and C++ (not to mention the investment from the big tech companies in developing and implementing these standards) That's an orthogonal issue; that's adoption. More adoption means more stability, regardless of whether or not the thing has a standards committee. Of course Rust can't hold a candle to the level of adoption C has.
TheCoelacanth 10y ago
Rust is far more stable than C was six years into it's life. It hasn't caught up with C yet, but C had a 38 year head-start.