4 ms·

The success of Go heralds that of Rust

33 points by deweller 8y ago

woah 8y ago
How can I invest?
atombender 8y ago
There are many factual errors in this article, and some ridiculous amount of hyperbole. Several Rust developers have already addressed the shortcomings on Reddit [1]. [1] https://reddit.com/r/rust/comments/9nsjmj/the_success_of_go_heralds_that_of_rust/ https://reddit.com/r/rust/comments/9nsjmj/the_success_of_go_...
jonathanstrange 8y ago
Choosing a language is a purely pragmatic issue. You grab the tool that's best suited for a job at hand. I've just started using Go because it's easy to get things done in it and has good tooling and already good libraries. The time I was most productive with my hobby/shareware programming so far was when I used Realbasic, the Visualbasic clone sold by Andrew Barry as affordable shareware before it became the ultra-expensive mess that is now called Xojo. Language features are fairly irrelevant, sure Go has some weird oddities for a language of the 21st Century, but it has everything I need to get things done. As for Rust, I really tried to like it, but so far the only thing I see is an overly complex, anal-retentive language focused on perceived safety but without Ada's readability and long-term maintainability and, just like Ada, without an optional GC but, unlike Ada, without other standard features like integer subtypes and OO with inheritance. I have been downvoted for this just yesterday, there are apparent many ardent language afficionados for Rust on HN, so I need to stop here. I definitely would choose Rust for high-integrity software that doesn't need the guarantees of Spark, but I currently don't write such software. Go is a great language despite its quirks, verbose error handling and lack of generics because it has a large developer base, compiles fast, compiles to reasonably fast executables, and allows me to get things done relatively fast in certain domains like CLI tools. Unfortunately, it still lacks a good, non-license encumbered cross-platform GUI library, so it's not a full replacement for REALBasic yet. I hope this changes soon, Go would be ideal for developing mid-size desktop applications.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
nilsocket 8y ago
The most important feature of go is it's simplicity. Rusts isn't anywhere near. It's easy to jump into a new go project and start writing code. Most other languages will fail at this. People call it opiniated. but I think, it came from writing years of complex code.
glenrivard 8y ago
I really like both and for different reasons. But I think Rust was tiny bit too late. Just a couple!e years earlier and think it would be well ahead of Rust in inertia.
hellofunk 8y ago
This article seems to be missing just how hard it is to learn and use Rust compared to Go. That's a big consideration in the popularity of a language. The article seemed to miss the forest for the trees, as they say.
beders 8y ago
/s You guys still in the code-compile-run-cycle? *please not the sarcasm marker

33 points by deweller 8y ago

woah 8y ago

How can I invest?

There are many factual errors in this article, and some ridiculous amount of hyperbole. Several Rust developers have already addressed the shortcomings on Reddit [1]. [1] https://reddit.com/r/rust/comments/9nsjmj/the_success_of_go_heralds_that_of_rust/ https://reddit.com/r/rust/comments/9nsjmj/the_success_of_go_...

jonathanstrange 8y ago

Choosing a language is a purely pragmatic issue. You grab the tool that's best suited for a job at hand. I've just started using Go because it's easy to get things done in it and has good tooling and already good libraries. The time I was most productive with my hobby/shareware programming so far was when I used Realbasic, the Visualbasic clone sold by Andrew Barry as affordable shareware before it became the ultra-expensive mess that is now called Xojo. Language features are fairly irrelevant, sure Go has some weird oddities for a language of the 21st Century, but it has everything I need to get things done. As for Rust, I really tried to like it, but so far the only thing I see is an overly complex, anal-retentive language focused on perceived safety but without Ada's readability and long-term maintainability and, just like Ada, without an optional GC but, unlike Ada, without other standard features like integer subtypes and OO with inheritance. I have been downvoted for this just yesterday, there are apparent many ardent language afficionados for Rust on HN, so I need to stop here. I definitely would choose Rust for high-integrity software that doesn't need the guarantees of Spark, but I currently don't write such software. Go is a great language despite its quirks, verbose error handling and lack of generics because it has a large developer base, compiles fast, compiles to reasonably fast executables, and allows me to get things done relatively fast in certain domains like CLI tools. Unfortunately, it still lacks a good, non-license encumbered cross-platform GUI library, so it's not a full replacement for REALBasic yet. I hope this changes soon, Go would be ideal for developing mid-size desktop applications.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

nilsocket 8y ago

The most important feature of go is it's simplicity. Rusts isn't anywhere near. It's easy to jump into a new go project and start writing code. Most other languages will fail at this. People call it opiniated. but I think, it came from writing years of complex code.

glenrivard 8y ago

I really like both and for different reasons. But I think Rust was tiny bit too late. Just a couple!e years earlier and think it would be well ahead of Rust in inertia.

hellofunk 8y ago

This article seems to be missing just how hard it is to learn and use Rust compared to Go. That's a big consideration in the popularity of a language. The article seemed to miss the forest for the trees, as they say.

beders 8y ago

/s You guys still in the code-compile-run-cycle? *please not the sarcasm marker