3 ms·
Ah yes, a 236 word "article", that says to choose "boring old technology" and also to use Rust in the same breath. This article should mention that rust isn't
by andrewzah 6y ago
Ah yes, a 236 word "article", that says to choose "boring old technology" and also to use Rust in the same breath.
This article should mention that rust isn't close to ready when it comes to web backends. As much as I love Rust, if I were running a startup or even a decently sized company I would always choose Rails. Now -that- is boring, old... and mature technology. Certain components could get re-written in Rust, certainly, but there's no reason to ignore a mature ecosystem from the start.
- zozbot234 6y ago> This article should mention that rust isn't close to ready when it comes to web backends. Actix-web works just fine. They got a new maintainer team involved that has been spending some time getting rid of all the insane unsafety that was in the code before.
- andrewzah 6y agoYes. It "works". However deciding to use Actix/Warp means throwing away years and years of work in the rails and ruby world. Rails is mature, robust, and has a huge ecosystem with rubygems. Rust (when it comes to web stuff) is not. "it works" does not pass my litmus test. With Actix/Warp I have to implement stuff by hand that either comes by default with rails or already exists in a gem. I like Rust but I'm not a zealot. People way overestimate performance when they barely have any traffic to begin with as a small startup or even a medium sized company. You could even use rails, and use Rust to write ruby gems instead of going with actix/warp/etc. > insane unsafety This was overblown. Yes, the author didn't respond appropriately, but unsafe isn't inherently dangerous. This is a stupid misconception within the Rust community and caused a lot of unnecessary drama around Actix.