3 ms·

> It takes months of steady investment (and yes, frustration), but the payoffs are spectacular. In my experience, most developers can't or won't put in this so

> It takes months of steady investment (and yes, frustration), but the payoffs are spectacular. In my experience, most developers can't or won't put in this sort of investment. Which leads me to wonder what fields/niches will Rust land in? This might change if, as other commenters have stated, it is taught as a first or second language, but that doesn't seem likely anytime soon...

gcp 10y ago
Rust's niche seems very clear: C++ programmers that need better tools. This is an audience that should be willing to make a time investment, and understands the trade-off, for the most part.
- sidlls 10y ago
  I disagree to some extent, for a couple of reasons. First, C++ programmers in aggregate have to consider more than the choice of language for their projects. Odds are they work for somebody else, on a team, an established project, whatever. In these cases "C++ programmers need better tools" doesn't mean "toss the bath out with the water." Rust isn't necessarily a good move in established products, in other words. Second, Rust would do better, in my opinion, to target folks who are new to systems programming and, for whatever (mostly invalid, in my opinion) reasons, are intimidated by C or C++. Rust is very powerful and in many ways I like it much better than C++. I think Rust offers a great way for these people to have a gentle introduction to the world of systems programming. I say "gentle" because a good portion of the "pain" of learning is front-loaded into getting a build, rather than back-loaded into futzing about with gdb (although that would be something these folks will miss out on--who doesn't like a good session with gdb with a satisfying bug squash at the end?). Get them while they're young, as they say.
  - gcp 10y ago
    I don't disagree - my statement was also directed to people new to this field. The overhead for existing C++ teams is learning the language, and (potentially AFAIK) interfacing with C++ code that has no good C style API. But Rust seems to tackle even the latter quite well. I don't think you'll get around the learning curve for a new language.
noxToken 10y ago
> it is taught as a first or second language This is interesting. Many universities teach Java, C, C++ or Python as a first language. The headache that many first year students suffer from these basic (relatively speaking) languages is readily apparent. Rust is very strict, and it requires an entirely different mindset to use. I wonder how this would fare with students who have a clean slate.
- webmaven 10y ago
  > I wonder how this would fare with students who have a clean slate. I suspect that the % of students who have difficulties won't be much different, overall. There may be a different distribution of when they run into trouble. The interesting question is whether the group of students who have problems with other first programming languages is different from the group that have problems with Rust-as-a-first-language...

gcp 10y ago

Rust's niche seems very clear: C++ programmers that need better tools. This is an audience that should be willing to make a time investment, and understands the trade-off, for the most part.

sidlls 10y ago
I disagree to some extent, for a couple of reasons. First, C++ programmers in aggregate have to consider more than the choice of language for their projects. Odds are they work for somebody else, on a team, an established project, whatever. In these cases "C++ programmers need better tools" doesn't mean "toss the bath out with the water." Rust isn't necessarily a good move in established products, in other words. Second, Rust would do better, in my opinion, to target folks who are new to systems programming and, for whatever (mostly invalid, in my opinion) reasons, are intimidated by C or C++. Rust is very powerful and in many ways I like it much better than C++. I think Rust offers a great way for these people to have a gentle introduction to the world of systems programming. I say "gentle" because a good portion of the "pain" of learning is front-loaded into getting a build, rather than back-loaded into futzing about with gdb (although that would be something these folks will miss out on--who doesn't like a good session with gdb with a satisfying bug squash at the end?). Get them while they're young, as they say.
- gcp 10y ago
  I don't disagree - my statement was also directed to people new to this field. The overhead for existing C++ teams is learning the language, and (potentially AFAIK) interfacing with C++ code that has no good C style API. But Rust seems to tackle even the latter quite well. I don't think you'll get around the learning curve for a new language.

noxToken 10y ago

> it is taught as a first or second language This is interesting. Many universities teach Java, C, C++ or Python as a first language. The headache that many first year students suffer from these basic (relatively speaking) languages is readily apparent. Rust is very strict, and it requires an entirely different mindset to use. I wonder how this would fare with students who have a clean slate.

webmaven 10y ago
> I wonder how this would fare with students who have a clean slate. I suspect that the % of students who have difficulties won't be much different, overall. There may be a different distribution of when they run into trouble. The interesting question is whether the group of students who have problems with other first programming languages is different from the group that have problems with Rust-as-a-first-language...