6 ms·

I use Rust almost exclusively for my side-projects now, and it has given me (as a guy who spends 2 days to find the Right Way to do a thing because this one han

I use Rust almost exclusively for my side-projects now, and it has given me (as a guy who spends 2 days to find the Right Way to do a thing because this one hand-waved line in a tutorial just gives a bad smell) much joy and taught me a lot, but as professional, slow adoption in the industry makes me nervous. I have decent experience and background in my current tech stack to easily find a well-paying job, but if something happens to it, or to particular industry it's relevant to, I want something to fall back on; I've seen too many developers drift into a comfortable numbness of stagnation (ActionScript, anyone?). And yet, Rust jobs are extremely rare, and each one attracts a lot of VERY motivated and skilled candidates eager to start writing Rust full-time; and quite frankly, while I think that I'm a decent developer, I don't consider myself among this 1%. So, I'm curious: how does HN see this situation going forward? Where will Rust find widespread industry adoption, and what can Rust community do to bring this forward?

chetanbhasin 8y ago
The thing about getting comfortable is rust is that even if the entire ecosystem burns up in ashes, you can still get a decent job switching to C++. Learning and using rust makes you a good systems programmer in general, not just at Rust. Having said that, I don't think the rust ecosystem is going to go up in flames anytime soon, but lack of professional application at the moment doesn't bother me too much.
blub 8y ago
I'm not so sure that it will find widespread industry adoption. I've been eyeing job boards for 1-2 years now, looking at what kind of Rust jobs are available: there's few of them, mostly start-ups. Furthermore, as you mentioned, there are many very motivated candidates competing for those jobs. Some bigger companies are supposedly using Rust (Amazon, Google, MS) on some projects, but these companies have so many things going that they are likely to use most languages in some kind of project. I've also heard that there are several "invisible" Rust jobs, only available through connections - but these are irrelevant IMO. And then there are the jobs where one is obviously not using Rust, but they mention it to score points or dangle it as a possibility. Until I see a strong market for Rust skills, or my own employer offers interesting Rust projects, it doesn't make sense for me to invest beyond learning the basics. Funnily enough I'm looking into Go now - its job market is one-sided and quite anaemic, but it offers some nice technical benefits and is a piece of cake to learn.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  Also some of the companies adopting Rust, like Microsoft and Google, are also the companies with a couple of key people seating at ISO C++, and pushing for adopting Rust ideas into C++.
  - pcwalton 8y ago
    The lifetime profile is basically nothing more than a few lints. There are systematic reasons why C++ can never get the memory safety features of Rust without breaking compatibility so much that it won't be C++ anymore.
    - pjmlp 8y ago
      Really, I do like Rust, but you should adopt another strategy to win the hearts of C++ devs than throwing such jabs. Show them to create a secure COM component to integrate in .NET can be easier than writing it in C++/WinRT | C++/CLI, using the same VS/debugger integration while being safer, for example.
      - pcwalton 8y ago
        C++/WinRT and C++/CLI are not memory safe. Rust is. I don't see how Visual Studio, debugger integration, COM, and .NET are relevant: one is safe and the other is not.
        pjmlp 8y ago
        As stated, "you should adopt another strategy to win the hearts of C++ devs". Repeating ad infinitum in every HN thread about C++ improvements regarding safety, that the only path to enlightenment is rewriting the world from scratch, without any regard for the loss of productivity, tooling and libraries in doing so, always hand waving them as minor inconveniences, is trying to catch flies with vinegar, but I guess I am wasting my Latin as we say back home.
        8y ago
jandrewrogers 8y ago
The challenge for Rust is that most of the people that are proficient at systems programming are already proficient in modern C++. For those developers, any advantages of Rust do not outweigh its disadvantages in practice, so there is little incentive to invest in changing languages. Rust can best grow its developer base by growing the number of new systems programmers, as they would have less to lose by using Rust and would be less likely to notice its limitations. The challenge here is that becoming a competent systems programmer is much more difficult than learning a new programming language, and there is a chronic shortage of developers interested in systems programming. If we were still using classic C++ (i.e. C++03 and earlier) then I think Rust would have a real chance. The rapid evolution and adoption of modern C++ has fixed many (most?) of its major weaknesses.
- golergka 8y ago
  Personally, I use Rust for things that are very far from systems programming - web apps, game development and small utilities for now (although I'm eager to at least try app development on it, when it gains at least minimum amount of support). That's the beauty of Rust for me: perfomance and correctness of a system programming language that is actually usable for product development.
  - hello_moto 8y ago
    Yea but nobody (no company/org) is going with that direction except a few... Majority goes to Rust for what it is developed for: system programming. Just like I won't use Go for web app dev (ugh.. what a PITA)
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- pcwalton 8y ago
  I don't know where you'd get the idea that everyone who knows modern C++ prefers Rust. I'm not the only one who knows how to use modern C++ and usually goes with Rust instead. In my opinion, modern C++ is less safe than classic C++, because it adds more ways to get use after free (e.g. lambdas). Modern C++ is not memory safe, and there is no way for it to achieve memory safety without either significant runtime overhead or breaking compatibility so much it won't be C++ anymore. The features in modern C++ are nice, but they don't solve my problems.
pjmlp 8y ago
Until it gets a platform to come along with the language, it will keep this slow adoption. Most mainstream languages being used today took around 20+ years to get here, Rust will need as much for long term survival.

chetanbhasin 8y ago

The thing about getting comfortable is rust is that even if the entire ecosystem burns up in ashes, you can still get a decent job switching to C++. Learning and using rust makes you a good systems programmer in general, not just at Rust. Having said that, I don't think the rust ecosystem is going to go up in flames anytime soon, but lack of professional application at the moment doesn't bother me too much.

blub 8y ago

I'm not so sure that it will find widespread industry adoption. I've been eyeing job boards for 1-2 years now, looking at what kind of Rust jobs are available: there's few of them, mostly start-ups. Furthermore, as you mentioned, there are many very motivated candidates competing for those jobs. Some bigger companies are supposedly using Rust (Amazon, Google, MS) on some projects, but these companies have so many things going that they are likely to use most languages in some kind of project. I've also heard that there are several "invisible" Rust jobs, only available through connections - but these are irrelevant IMO. And then there are the jobs where one is obviously not using Rust, but they mention it to score points or dangle it as a possibility. Until I see a strong market for Rust skills, or my own employer offers interesting Rust projects, it doesn't make sense for me to invest beyond learning the basics. Funnily enough I'm looking into Go now - its job market is one-sided and quite anaemic, but it offers some nice technical benefits and is a piece of cake to learn.

pjmlp 8y ago
Also some of the companies adopting Rust, like Microsoft and Google, are also the companies with a couple of key people seating at ISO C++, and pushing for adopting Rust ideas into C++.
- pcwalton 8y ago
  The lifetime profile is basically nothing more than a few lints. There are systematic reasons why C++ can never get the memory safety features of Rust without breaking compatibility so much that it won't be C++ anymore.
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    Really, I do like Rust, but you should adopt another strategy to win the hearts of C++ devs than throwing such jabs. Show them to create a secure COM component to integrate in .NET can be easier than writing it in C++/WinRT | C++/CLI, using the same VS/debugger integration while being safer, for example.
    - pcwalton 8y ago
      C++/WinRT and C++/CLI are not memory safe. Rust is. I don't see how Visual Studio, debugger integration, COM, and .NET are relevant: one is safe and the other is not.
      - pjmlp 8y ago
        As stated, "you should adopt another strategy to win the hearts of C++ devs". Repeating ad infinitum in every HN thread about C++ improvements regarding safety, that the only path to enlightenment is rewriting the world from scratch, without any regard for the loss of productivity, tooling and libraries in doing so, always hand waving them as minor inconveniences, is trying to catch flies with vinegar, but I guess I am wasting my Latin as we say back home.
        8y ago

jandrewrogers 8y ago

The challenge for Rust is that most of the people that are proficient at systems programming are already proficient in modern C++. For those developers, any advantages of Rust do not outweigh its disadvantages in practice, so there is little incentive to invest in changing languages. Rust can best grow its developer base by growing the number of new systems programmers, as they would have less to lose by using Rust and would be less likely to notice its limitations. The challenge here is that becoming a competent systems programmer is much more difficult than learning a new programming language, and there is a chronic shortage of developers interested in systems programming. If we were still using classic C++ (i.e. C++03 and earlier) then I think Rust would have a real chance. The rapid evolution and adoption of modern C++ has fixed many (most?) of its major weaknesses.

golergka 8y ago
Personally, I use Rust for things that are very far from systems programming - web apps, game development and small utilities for now (although I'm eager to at least try app development on it, when it gains at least minimum amount of support). That's the beauty of Rust for me: perfomance and correctness of a system programming language that is actually usable for product development.
- hello_moto 8y ago
  Yea but nobody (no company/org) is going with that direction except a few... Majority goes to Rust for what it is developed for: system programming. Just like I won't use Go for web app dev (ugh.. what a PITA)
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
pcwalton 8y ago
I don't know where you'd get the idea that everyone who knows modern C++ prefers Rust. I'm not the only one who knows how to use modern C++ and usually goes with Rust instead. In my opinion, modern C++ is less safe than classic C++, because it adds more ways to get use after free (e.g. lambdas). Modern C++ is not memory safe, and there is no way for it to achieve memory safety without either significant runtime overhead or breaking compatibility so much it won't be C++ anymore. The features in modern C++ are nice, but they don't solve my problems.

pjmlp 8y ago

Until it gets a platform to come along with the language, it will keep this slow adoption. Most mainstream languages being used today took around 20+ years to get here, Rust will need as much for long term survival.