5 ms·

> We should remember productivity is really subjective and not the same thing as high level abstractions. We're typically the most productive on the language we

> We should remember productivity is really subjective and not the same thing as high level abstractions. We're typically the most productive on the language we have the most exposure to, whatever it may be. I agree with you on this we are most productive in the language with most exposure. Indeed many in Rust community do not realize that the LLVM infrastructure they use for Rust to make its code executable by real hardware is itself written in C++. Rust is still miles away to compile itself and may not happen. So survival of Rust is dependent on progress of C and C++. So I doubt it is even be viable to call it their replacement.

pkolaczk 7y ago
> Indeed many in Rust community do not realize that the LLVM infrastructure they use for Rust to make its code executable by real hardware is itself written in C++. And the operating system is written in C, and the CPU in VHDL (or sth similar). Compiling itself is a property that only academics take care of. LLVM and C are not going anywhere anytime soon. There are more important things to do now. That's why Rust is already much more loved and popular language than Haskell - because it focused on important stuff and getting job done, not theory that looks only nice on paper, but doesn't match how hardware (and generally the world) operates. Real stuff is mutable. Not being able to mutate stuff in Haskell directly is a productivity killer. Many of the "abstractions" you can build in Haskell exist solely to workaround this limitation. Exposure has nothing to do with this. Rust is new and Haskell is since forever, yet Rust already far surpassed Haskell in terms of adoption.
- pjmlp 7y ago
  Not all OSes are written in C, thankfully a couple have moved into C++.