3 ms·
I don't think any embedded systems engineers are programming in Rust for nuclear reactors or subs, and I don't think they are considering it either. No amount o
by creatornator 8y ago
I don't think any embedded systems engineers are programming in Rust for nuclear reactors or subs, and I don't think they are considering it either. No amount of safety constraints in Rust make up for the fact that the Rust team is sometimes willing to forgo backwards compatibility to keep the language clean. Not to mention those are usually legacy codebases from before Rust even existed, and no one is convincing the DoD or the DoE to "rewrite in Rust".
- steveklabnik 8y ago> the fact that the Rust team is sometimes willing to forgo backwards compatibility to keep the language clean What cases are you thinking of here?
- creatornator 8y agoWell I suppose backwards compat might have been the wrong phrase here. I'm thinking more that it's a language whose v1.0 release was only 3 years ago before which it was "difficult to maintain projects written in Rust, since the language and standard library were constantly changing" [0]. That's not to say that it isn't a stable language now (and I actually quite like it) but with only 3 years of stability to show, "nuclear reactors" and "submarines" are strange things to list as applications for the language. [0] (https://blog.rust-lang.org/2015/05/15/Rust-1.0.html https://blog.rust-lang.org/2015/05/15/Rust-1.0.html)