2 ms·

Rust has a real existence that's somewhere in the vicinity of that of Elixir, Haskell, Ada, and Delphi. It's definitely alive, but it's not "the one to beat" or

by pron 6y ago

Rust has a real existence that's somewhere in the vicinity of that of Elixir, Haskell, Ada, and Delphi. It's definitely alive, but it's not "the one to beat" or a major factor, even in the systems programming space, which is what I was responding to.

littlestymaar 6y ago
Then you misunderstood the comment you were responding, because it claimed Rust was the one to beat in terms of design, never in terms of market share. I someone wanted to release a new functional programming language, it would be totally legitimate to ask how it compare with Haskell, and complain that it's a poor reinvention of standard ML, even if Haskell only has a tiny market share.
- pron 6y ago
  Then you misunderstood my comment because what I said was that because of its market share and age, it isn't the one to beat in terms of design, because we have no sensible way to judge how good its design is, even in comparison to other languages. The sample size is just too small, and the experiment too young.
  - littlestymaar 6y ago
    Yes, that's what you said, and to make your point, you compared Rust to two super new languages that are still mostly developed by a single person and not being used anyware. Then you rectified yourself, and more accurately compared Rust with Haskell and other languages. At this point you already gave up on your initial argument, because no-one would consider Haskell too small to be a proper benchmark of a new functional programming language. Of course, as this is an internet argument, you're not going to recognize it. Now, since we are now circling back to the initial claims, I don't think this conversation is worth pursuing. Have a nice (and safe) day.
    - pron 6y ago
      I think most people would think Haskell is too small and that we have enough experience with it to judge the merits of its design.

2 ms·

Rust has a real existence that's somewhere in the vicinity of that of Elixir, Haskell, Ada, and Delphi. It's definitely alive, but it's not "the one to beat" or

by pron 6y ago

littlestymaar 6y ago
Then you misunderstood the comment you were responding, because it claimed Rust was the one to beat in terms of design, never in terms of market share. I someone wanted to release a new functional programming language, it would be totally legitimate to ask how it compare with Haskell, and complain that it's a poor reinvention of standard ML, even if Haskell only has a tiny market share.
- pron 6y ago
  Then you misunderstood my comment because what I said was that because of its market share and age, it isn't the one to beat in terms of design, because we have no sensible way to judge how good its design is, even in comparison to other languages. The sample size is just too small, and the experiment too young.
  - littlestymaar 6y ago
    Yes, that's what you said, and to make your point, you compared Rust to two super new languages that are still mostly developed by a single person and not being used anyware. Then you rectified yourself, and more accurately compared Rust with Haskell and other languages. At this point you already gave up on your initial argument, because no-one would consider Haskell too small to be a proper benchmark of a new functional programming language. Of course, as this is an internet argument, you're not going to recognize it. Now, since we are now circling back to the initial claims, I don't think this conversation is worth pursuing. Have a nice (and safe) day.
    - pron 6y ago
      I think most people would think Haskell is too small and that we have enough experience with it to judge the merits of its design.