3 ms·

Rust delivers on all these claims on a very limited set of platforms. The support for BSDs is abysmal, with only x86_64 NetBSD and i686/x86_64 FreeBSD even bein

Rust delivers on all these claims on a very limited set of platforms. The support for BSDs is abysmal, with only x86_64 NetBSD and i686/x86_64 FreeBSD even being "guaranteed to build", while OpenBSD, Windows XP and Solaris sit in some kind of state of hopelessness[1]. Rust is not a replacement for C in the sense of portability. People love simplifying the world into Windows/macOS/Linux, but that is not all you may want to target. [1] https://forge.rust-lang.org/platform-support.html https://forge.rust-lang.org/platform-support.html

bluejekyll 9y ago
What you point out can be fixed with time and resources. C has had 40 years to be ported to all of these other platforms. Rust has been realeased and stable for a little over 2.
staticassertion 9y ago
"All of the performance of C without the footguns" Nowhere in this sentence do I see "for every platform C targets". Given no other requirement other than C without the footguns (memory unsafe) is there a good reason not to use the safe version? I'd say there are some, but they aren't crazy compelling (ie: developers have to learn rust, maybe harder to hire for, etc).
- boomlinde 9y ago
  It's still a very realistic reason that someone would prefer C over Rust. Having to learn Rust, it being harder to hire for, etc. are really just as irrelevant to the named requirements, but important concerns nonetheless.