5 ms·
>If "progress" means "rapidly add more and more new features in each release", multiple implementations will slow things down This has to happen at some point
by turminal 6y ago
>If "progress" means "rapidly add more and more new features in each release", multiple implementations will slow things down
This has to happen at some point anyway otherwise we'll just get another C++. And I don't think Rust would benefit from that. New languages are designed to fix problems with the old ones, not to replicate them after all.
I just hope the designers will choose that point wisely.
- pjmlp 6y agoIn some extent, given the use of macros and Haskell like libraries, it is already another C++. Besides, if Rust doesn't become another C++, it won't fulfil the industry needs that C++ caters for, thus while it might become a success in some domain, it won't replace C++ in the OS and GPGPU SDKs.
- ncmncm 6y agoRust will not in any case replace C++, in any core application area. Rust might move in alongside C++, in some, in time. Or, Rust could still very possibly fizzle. That would be the normal course of events for a new language, barring a miracle as was dispensed to Javascript, Java, C++, and vanishingly few others. Will Dart survive and thrive? Kotlin? Scala? Clojure? Go? All doubtful, based on prior experience. Having a lot of code and a lot of users does not seem to suffice. Many other languages had those, and faded. Ada even had $billions in backing, and faded. What we can say confidently about Rust's future is that it is not certain to fade. The miracle has come in less deserving cases.
- pjmlp 6y ago> Ada even had $billions in backing, and faded. Yet, NVidia picked it up over Rust, go figure.
- varajelle 6y ago> otherwise we'll just get another C++. I don't see why this is a bad thing. I'm a C++ developer, and I like C++. (I like rust as well)