4 ms·
.. And that future is defined as "rust"
by lallysingh 9y ago
.. And that future is defined as "rust"
- dsacco 9y agoOnce again: there is plenty of room for both Rust and C++. One language does not need to "win." The Rust community doesn't endorse your flavor of evangelism here. It's not a holy war.
- pjmlp 9y agoExactly, and even if I complained about the current ergonomics of lifetimes, the amazing work of Rust developers is already influencing design decisions on Haskell, Swift, .NET, Pony and C++ regarding resource management.
- dsacco 9y agoAny chance you could throw up an email for me to contact you, or use the one in my profile? I'd be interested in chatting with you "offline" as it were.
- eej71 9y agoWhile your comment is a bit snarky, there is some truth to it in that if rust successfully evangelizes a technique, I'd expect the C++ world to bring it on board if there is room and I'm sure room can be found. The one topic to consider is this - is there a world where a language's existing code base is so large and the community so diverse that even _you_ would hesitate to break things for them? And at the same time, doesn't it make sense for that community to keep marching forward? Yes the language has baggage and the path forward isn't easy, but there are still paths ahead for C++. My advice to the rust community. Model yourself after the C++ strategy of evolution. Do not repeat the mistakes of the Python 2->3 world or the perl 5->6 world or what appears to be happening to Go. Don't break the past.
- steveklabnik 9y agoIn general, Rust is modelling ourselves after that. There was even a recent RFC to explicitly move to a model of language change after the C++ model, but people are concerned that it breaks too much. https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2052 https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2052