4 ms·

Rust still on top. Real shame there are so few Rust jobs out there. I agree, the language is still changing way too much but that is to be expected from a relat

Rust still on top. Real shame there are so few Rust jobs out there. I agree, the language is still changing way too much but that is to be expected from a relatively new language. A lot of polishing has been done and imo, it's a production ready language at this point. Tooling is awesome, cargo is awesome, packaging is great. The compiler is still very slow, despite a lot of improvements on that front but that is to be expected given Rust's nature. Real shame it's so underused in the real world :/

skohan 6y ago
There are also not that many actual professional rust developers out there. I think there are a lot of developers who love the idea of rust, and are curious about rust, but I suspect the number of developers who have actually completed a rust project of meaningful complexity and deployed it to production is vanishingly small.
- dochtman 6y ago
  The metric used by Stack Overflow is "% of developers who are developing with the language or technology and have expressed interest in continuing to develop with it", so it seems likely to me are likely to have some understanding of what writing Rust code is like. You seem to equate "actual professional" with "meaningful complexity" or "deployed to production", which seems limited. I'm pretty sure I've written meaningfully complex code outside my day job -- and I would guess many open source developers write such code outside the context of their job.
  - dtech 6y ago
    Unfortunately, people have a tendency to not read the question well or just lie to support their favorite.
  - koheripbal 6y ago
    If the question included the word "professionally", I think it would be a lot more meaningful.
rvz 6y ago
I can only guess that this enthusiasm and high pay for finding the best Rust programmers will be "justified" in companies using it in data structures and algorithms interviews in Hackerrank and Leetcode which would be interesting to see if that makes any sense given that they can control which crates you can use, no use of unsafe{} etc which might be a turn off to some. I'm pretty sure that no-one wants to fight with the borrow checker whilst implementing a data structure either on a whiteboard or in Hackerrank / Leetcode.
themacguffinman 6y ago
At what point do we stop holding Rust to lower standards because it's "relatively new"? Go first appeared in 2009 [1] while Rust first appeared in 2010 [2], but Rust's flaws are apparently expected as it's perpetually "relatively new". I want to like Rust, but its "do anything and everything" packaging system (Cargo) makes it hard to properly integrate into external build systems, which is pretty important to large companies or any company that has an integrated build system or an existing build system. The language is also increasingly complex and shows no sign of slowing. Developers may have a high opinion on Rust, but the evident scarcity of Rust jobs and underusage in the real world doesn't give me the impression that it's a production ready language. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(programming_language) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(programming_language) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_(programming_language) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_(programming_language)
- axegon_ 6y ago
  The comparison to Go is catastrophically unfair. Google is the main driver behind the development of go, while Rust is being developed by a tiny community within mozilla and a few volunteers.
  - eonil 6y ago
    I'm not sure on this. Rust has some users all over big tech firms including Google, MS, FB, Apple and Intel.
    - axegon_ 6y ago
      Arguably yes, but open up github and check the scale of the largest go and rust projects. They are universes apart: * kubernets - 2.5k contributors, 66.5k stars, 3.2k forks, 91k commits * cargo - 609 contributors, 5.6k stars, 1.1k forks, 9.5k commits No doubt there are large companies using Rust but that's peanuts compared to Go.
  - themacguffinman 6y ago
    Go is notoriously slow moving and very conservative feature-wise. Can you actually point to anything specific about Go and say "Go only has that because they have more contributors"? Anything more specific than "Google is richer, checkmate"? Note that I didn't say that Rust was buggy or was too small or something like that, I said that Rust was too complex and it didn't allow integration into external build systems. Both are things that the Rust project is completely capable of addressing but has chosen not to prioritize in favor of other language features. Correct me if I'm wrong, the earliest discussion I can find about meeting large org requirements took place in 2019 [1], 8 years after it first appeared, or 3 years after v1.0. It's their choice what to do and when to do it, but I think it's misleading to perpetually point at Google and ignore the Rust project's priorities. I'm open to a better explanation as to how Rust is somehow production-ready and extremely well known but comparatively few professionals actually choose to use it. [1] https://users.rust-lang.org/t/rust-in-large-organizations-meeting/32059 https://users.rust-lang.org/t/rust-in-large-organizations-me...
entha_saava 6y ago
> "% of developers who are developing with the language or technology and have expressed interest in continuing to develop with it" This is the metric for most loved language. So if 15 developers responded that they use rust, and all 15 have interest in continuing with it, then its score is 100%. This is not such a great metric of rust's success IMO. you can't try to push a well designed systems language into applications space and expect it to win everywhere. The actual problem is, there is no mature language with sufficient compile time guarantees for applications space. Go which is somehow treated as rust's competitor, is nowhere near that in terms of expressiveness or compile time checking. You would actually want generics, nullable types, exceptions, and streams in an applications language.

skohan 6y ago

There are also not that many actual professional rust developers out there. I think there are a lot of developers who love the idea of rust, and are curious about rust, but I suspect the number of developers who have actually completed a rust project of meaningful complexity and deployed it to production is vanishingly small.

dochtman 6y ago
The metric used by Stack Overflow is "% of developers who are developing with the language or technology and have expressed interest in continuing to develop with it", so it seems likely to me are likely to have some understanding of what writing Rust code is like. You seem to equate "actual professional" with "meaningful complexity" or "deployed to production", which seems limited. I'm pretty sure I've written meaningfully complex code outside my day job -- and I would guess many open source developers write such code outside the context of their job.
- dtech 6y ago
  Unfortunately, people have a tendency to not read the question well or just lie to support their favorite.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  If the question included the word "professionally", I think it would be a lot more meaningful.

rvz 6y ago

I can only guess that this enthusiasm and high pay for finding the best Rust programmers will be "justified" in companies using it in data structures and algorithms interviews in Hackerrank and Leetcode which would be interesting to see if that makes any sense given that they can control which crates you can use, no use of unsafe{} etc which might be a turn off to some. I'm pretty sure that no-one wants to fight with the borrow checker whilst implementing a data structure either on a whiteboard or in Hackerrank / Leetcode.

themacguffinman 6y ago

At what point do we stop holding Rust to lower standards because it's "relatively new"? Go first appeared in 2009 [1] while Rust first appeared in 2010 [2], but Rust's flaws are apparently expected as it's perpetually "relatively new". I want to like Rust, but its "do anything and everything" packaging system (Cargo) makes it hard to properly integrate into external build systems, which is pretty important to large companies or any company that has an integrated build system or an existing build system. The language is also increasingly complex and shows no sign of slowing. Developers may have a high opinion on Rust, but the evident scarcity of Rust jobs and underusage in the real world doesn't give me the impression that it's a production ready language. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(programming_language) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(programming_language) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_(programming_language) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_(programming_language)

axegon_ 6y ago
The comparison to Go is catastrophically unfair. Google is the main driver behind the development of go, while Rust is being developed by a tiny community within mozilla and a few volunteers.
- eonil 6y ago
  I'm not sure on this. Rust has some users all over big tech firms including Google, MS, FB, Apple and Intel.
  - axegon_ 6y ago
    Arguably yes, but open up github and check the scale of the largest go and rust projects. They are universes apart: * kubernets - 2.5k contributors, 66.5k stars, 3.2k forks, 91k commits * cargo - 609 contributors, 5.6k stars, 1.1k forks, 9.5k commits No doubt there are large companies using Rust but that's peanuts compared to Go.
- themacguffinman 6y ago
  Go is notoriously slow moving and very conservative feature-wise. Can you actually point to anything specific about Go and say "Go only has that because they have more contributors"? Anything more specific than "Google is richer, checkmate"? Note that I didn't say that Rust was buggy or was too small or something like that, I said that Rust was too complex and it didn't allow integration into external build systems. Both are things that the Rust project is completely capable of addressing but has chosen not to prioritize in favor of other language features. Correct me if I'm wrong, the earliest discussion I can find about meeting large org requirements took place in 2019 [1], 8 years after it first appeared, or 3 years after v1.0. It's their choice what to do and when to do it, but I think it's misleading to perpetually point at Google and ignore the Rust project's priorities. I'm open to a better explanation as to how Rust is somehow production-ready and extremely well known but comparatively few professionals actually choose to use it. [1] https://users.rust-lang.org/t/rust-in-large-organizations-meeting/32059 https://users.rust-lang.org/t/rust-in-large-organizations-me...

entha_saava 6y ago

> "% of developers who are developing with the language or technology and have expressed interest in continuing to develop with it" This is the metric for most loved language. So if 15 developers responded that they use rust, and all 15 have interest in continuing with it, then its score is 100%. This is not such a great metric of rust's success IMO. you can't try to push a well designed systems language into applications space and expect it to win everywhere. The actual problem is, there is no mature language with sufficient compile time guarantees for applications space. Go which is somehow treated as rust's competitor, is nowhere near that in terms of expressiveness or compile time checking. You would actually want generics, nullable types, exceptions, and streams in an applications language.