2 ms·

> Rust is stable I believe Rust is fine, but it's not stable in relation to "multi-year development effort" (as in, didn't even exist), and has had inevitable

> Rust is stable I believe Rust is fine, but it's not stable in relation to "multi-year development effort" (as in, didn't even exist), and has had inevitable churn during its forming years. Thing is, a programming language is a means to an end; choosing Rust you're tied to its success and need to take decisions early on in your project (for example, wrt target platforms) when that's something you'd rather postpone until you absolutely have to, which you can do with C and C++. Plus, I've seen languages that tried to be too clever which not only results in you fighting the compiler but also potentially causing generational churn. Like, a fresh generation of developers might hate having to deal with your super-intensive language, wanting to do its own thing instead. Basically, using <rustc-or-whatever-lang> might just suck in another way.

nindalf 6y ago
Forget Rust, the language. What's the blocker in using rustc 1.44 for your "multi-year development effort"? It's a binary on your hard drive, it won't change. Similar with any library you're depending on. The specific versions you're depending on will be available in perpetuity.
nicoburns 6y ago
> Like, a fresh generation of developers might hate having to deal with your super-intensive language, wanting to do its own thing instead. I suspect it's more likely that a fresh generation of developers will hate having to deal with C++! It's all very well if you have 10 years of experience, and you're used to it's quirks. But it's a lot to learn if you're new to it. Rust is significantly easier.