3 ms·
What grounds do you have for saying it's not a mature language? It's more than 10 years old. Subjectively I would feel as confident in safety and feature set as
by foota 6y ago
What grounds do you have for saying it's not a mature language? It's more than 10 years old. Subjectively I would feel as confident in safety and feature set as any other mainstream programming language.
I also strongly disagree that Rust has any sort of an uncertain future. It appears to be a well run and stable project. Regularly putting out releases from a variety of contributors.
- ncmncm 6y agoThe norm is for well-run, stable language projects to fizzle. Even massively funded and legislated languages do: consider Pascal, Smalltalk, Ada, and Common Lisp. Ultimately, the numbers count. C++ in 1990, at 10 years, was very far from mature. Rust has come up fast, but maturity, by definition, takes time.
- foota 6y agoI feel like we're working from different definitions of mature? I'm just looking at how suitable it is for use in production, not whether it's going to last forever.
- ncmncm 6y agoReadiness for use in production is the definition. But a language that falls out of use before the products written in it do was not ready. Look around at mature languages. They have shelves of books written about them, in numerous languages. More of their users are employed to write in them than not. They have conferences where most attendees are employed coding them. There are college courses on them. They are specified clearly enough to make a new implementation, and typically have multiple implementations. Multiple important products are written in them. Users get calls from recruiters inviting them to do it elsewhere. Rust will get all this if it lasts.