3 ms·
If you have no need for the use case of a high speed, low overhead non-GC language (or believe there is no need for such a thing), then Rust is going to be of n
by rkangel 9y ago
If you have no need for the use case of a high speed, low overhead non-GC language (or believe there is no need for such a thing), then Rust is going to be of no interest to you, and you are going to be better served solving your problems with another language - Java, C#, Python etc.
A large number of engineers do desire such a tool, and Rust provides that in a way that provides as little cost as possible over one of those more dynamic languages.
- varjag 9y agoYou are answering a point I didn't make. I addressed the stated 'engineering supremacy'.
- rkangel 9y agoI am asserting that (a) Rust has made a good choice to be a 'manual memory management' language, and that (b) it has executed that well (or at least better than any other option). Your phrase about 'painting itself into a corner' implies you disagree with point (a), and that was the case I was trying to make.