4 ms·
Rust to me is still very much feels to me a moving target. This is FUD mostly, Rust uses the same release model as Go, or Linux. 1.X is backwards compatible
by valarauca1 9y ago
Rust to me is still very much feels to me a moving target.
This is FUD mostly, Rust uses the same release model as Go, or Linux.
1.X is backwards compatible to 1.(X-N), and the releases are on a regular cycle... like Go and Linux (well minus semvar stuff, linux just doesn't break userland). Each release _does_ add new things, but they don't do _break_ old things.
- ben0x539 9y agoits not just the lang. can't use two random libraries together because one still uses old hyper and another uses new hyper.
- valarauca1 9y agoDLL hell is far older then Rust.
- majewsky 9y agoI think that's missing the point. A language can be a moving target while still being backwards-compatible. The textbook example is C++: A C++17 compiler can compile C++03 code, C++11 code and C++14 code [1], so the language is backwards-compatible. Meanwhile, each new release seems to add so many new features to the language and stdlib that idiomatic C++17 code can be wildly different from idiomatic C++11 code and even more so from idiomatic C++03 code. [1] Except, probably, for corner cases that I'm not aware of because I don't do C++ anymore.
- rkangel 9y agoIt's not quite like that in Rust though - in C++ modern features replace older features but in Rust that only happens in the detail. There isn't often an equivalent to unique_ptr/shared_ptr changing how you should to all pointer work.