4 ms·

I've been following Rust since way before 1.0 and one of my fears when 1.0 was announced was that it seemed rushed. On the other hand, I completely understood t

by kaoD 10y ago

I've been following Rust since way before 1.0 and one of my fears when 1.0 was announced was that it seemed rushed. On the other hand, I completely understood the need for stabilization for people that actually use Rust in production (i.e. not me). People aren't building castles on foundations of sand. They are building sandcastles, experimenting and building along as the language and ecosystem evolves and matures. Every nightly-only crate should be regarded as highly unstable and experimental. If a lot of people are building sandcastles surely that means that the language wasn't yet ready for that particular castle being made of stone. And this is a good thing! AFAICT without nightly-only crates being so pervasive due to compiler plugins, Macros 1.1 wouldn't be so close to stabilization. Isn't that exactly what nightly is for? If some nightly feature is used a lot, that means it should promptly be polished and stabilized. At such an early stage in the language's life the evolution is mutual. The development team responding timely to such issues is just another sign that Rust is a healthy (even if in its infancy) language. Stable Rust is dead, long live Stable Rust!

echelon 10y ago
You have correctly framed this situation. The linked article, however, was a complete misrepresentation as it declared, > Stable Rust is dead. Nightly Rust is the only Rust. Many people and orgs are using Rust stable. In production. Nightly is a playground. We shouldn't misinform those unfamiliar with the language or give them the opinion that Rust isn't well managed. Doing so can steer new talent and interest away. We are all relying on newcomers for more widespread adoption and faster growth of our community. The author probably didn't mean any harm, but I feel like the article is disingenuous and should have a retraction before it causes any confusion.
bronz 10y ago
this is such a good response. i dont think xion would disagree with the notion that rust is well on its way to being great.

by kaoD 10y ago

echelon 10y ago

You have correctly framed this situation. The linked article, however, was a complete misrepresentation as it declared, > Stable Rust is dead. Nightly Rust is the only Rust. Many people and orgs are using Rust stable. In production. Nightly is a playground. We shouldn't misinform those unfamiliar with the language or give them the opinion that Rust isn't well managed. Doing so can steer new talent and interest away. We are all relying on newcomers for more widespread adoption and faster growth of our community. The author probably didn't mean any harm, but I feel like the article is disingenuous and should have a retraction before it causes any confusion.

bronz 10y ago

this is such a good response. i dont think xion would disagree with the notion that rust is well on its way to being great.