2 ms·

No. Because it's not as mature, and doesn't support as many platforms. Those things are very important to me, and there is no steel thread for them. I imagine

by geocar 10y ago

No. Because it's not as mature, and doesn't support as many platforms. Those things are very important to me, and there is no steel thread for them. I imagine that in twenty years, it could be worth talking about rust as an alternative, but rust is only two years "stable", and it's unclear what the language, the tooling and the libraries are going to look like in that time. Meanwhile, I have software I wrote 20 years ago in C that still runs, correctly, and on the Internet, generating income, and a big part of the reason why is that C was already more than twenty years old at that point.

mamcx 10y ago
> I imagine that in twenty years... But WHY in 20? With this thinking NEVER WILL BE IMPROVED THE SITUATION! And I don't mean you, I mean the whole industry. Obviously stability and compatibility is important, but is not this almost like the COBOL problem? Nobody try to move out from COBOL because "maybe in the far future a solution will emerge" and the the future get here, and we are decades LATE? And RUST is not the only viable alternative. Ada, Pascal, Oberon, Modula (to name the family of languages I know more, but is likely some lisp and others exist too) where already there (decades ago) without break too much from the C mindset (and go crazy with monads and stuff like that). So, because look like without {} a system language have not chance in hell, take oberon and put the C syntax? And them we are not waiting 20 years in the future for it. But this will fail, for the same reasons that renuevable energy will fail against carbon: The community will not accept the costs in the short-term, not matter how much things could improve later... P.D: And what if a "rust-alike" lang but trans-piling to C, like with Nim? Or even better: C2 (C with improvements and eliminating as much baggage as possible) trans-piling to C. Eventually this will allow to bootstrap and still keep a way to old code bases...

by geocar 10y ago

mamcx 10y ago

> I imagine that in twenty years... But WHY in 20? With this thinking NEVER WILL BE IMPROVED THE SITUATION! And I don't mean you, I mean the whole industry. Obviously stability and compatibility is important, but is not this almost like the COBOL problem? Nobody try to move out from COBOL because "maybe in the far future a solution will emerge" and the the future get here, and we are decades LATE? And RUST is not the only viable alternative. Ada, Pascal, Oberon, Modula (to name the family of languages I know more, but is likely some lisp and others exist too) where already there (decades ago) without break too much from the C mindset (and go crazy with monads and stuff like that). So, because look like without {} a system language have not chance in hell, take oberon and put the C syntax? And them we are not waiting 20 years in the future for it. But this will fail, for the same reasons that renuevable energy will fail against carbon: The community will not accept the costs in the short-term, not matter how much things could improve later... P.D: And what if a "rust-alike" lang but trans-piling to C, like with Nim? Or even better: C2 (C with improvements and eliminating as much baggage as possible) trans-piling to C. Eventually this will allow to bootstrap and still keep a way to old code bases...