4 ms·

I think the downvotes are because of this statement: > the community hasn't (yet?) put in enough effort to reach parity with more web-oriented communities Rus

I think the downvotes are because of this statement: > the community hasn't (yet?) put in enough effort to reach parity with more web-oriented communities Rust is a relatively new language, and these things take time. The community is amazing and is putting in a lot of effort, but you have to be patient.

Groxx 6y ago
Totally agreed. IMO it's almost completely unreasonable to expect Rust to be as nice as more-established ecosystems, so it being "hard(er)" is expected. The community isn't as large nor has it existed as long, so of course it's not up to par yet. Given the community is generally more focused on performance and safety, I'd honestly expect it to take the Rust community longer to reach "nice for web projects" than e.g. Go and Node took.
randomdata 6y ago
> Rust is a relatively new language It is approximately the same age as Go and Node. Unless there is something fundamental to Rust that prevents the creation of what the parent describes as a convenient web library, then not putting in enough effort yet to this point is the only reasonable explanation. And a good explanation at that, as it is understandable why convenient web libraries has not been Rust's focus. There are plenty of good tools for that job already. The Rust project seems to be more concerned about creating good tools in areas where good tools are currently lacking. If downvoting was supposed to send some kind of message, I'm not sure that would explain it. Of course, all downvoting tells is that someone accidentally hit a button when they were trying to scroll through the page, so this is all moot anyway.
- zozbot234 6y ago
  > It is approximately the same age as Go and Node. While the Rust project is from that timeframe, the language internals were rewritten almost from scratch shortly before the 1.0 release, which dates from 2015 and is a more informative comparison. Nothing comparable occurred wrt. Go or Node.
  - randomdata 6y ago
    > While the Rust project is from that timeframe, the language internals were rewritten almost from scratch shortly before the 1.0 release That only speaks to priorities, though, which is exactly what was asserted earlier. If Rust's goal was to provide the best convenient web library, rewriting language internals would have been put on the back burner in order to focus on building the web library. However, that is not the Rust project's goal, so it was reasonable for people to choose to focus on something else instead. > Nothing comparable occurred wrt. Go or Node. Go (gc) was rewritten in Go. Completed in, funnily enough, 2015. I'm not convinced that year has any significance. The inception of the project is where the direction of the project is largely established. All of these tools were created to solve a particular set of problems and their course reflects that.

Groxx 6y ago

Totally agreed. IMO it's almost completely unreasonable to expect Rust to be as nice as more-established ecosystems, so it being "hard(er)" is expected. The community isn't as large nor has it existed as long, so of course it's not up to par yet. Given the community is generally more focused on performance and safety, I'd honestly expect it to take the Rust community longer to reach "nice for web projects" than e.g. Go and Node took.

randomdata 6y ago

> Rust is a relatively new language It is approximately the same age as Go and Node. Unless there is something fundamental to Rust that prevents the creation of what the parent describes as a convenient web library, then not putting in enough effort yet to this point is the only reasonable explanation. And a good explanation at that, as it is understandable why convenient web libraries has not been Rust's focus. There are plenty of good tools for that job already. The Rust project seems to be more concerned about creating good tools in areas where good tools are currently lacking. If downvoting was supposed to send some kind of message, I'm not sure that would explain it. Of course, all downvoting tells is that someone accidentally hit a button when they were trying to scroll through the page, so this is all moot anyway.

zozbot234 6y ago
> It is approximately the same age as Go and Node. While the Rust project is from that timeframe, the language internals were rewritten almost from scratch shortly before the 1.0 release, which dates from 2015 and is a more informative comparison. Nothing comparable occurred wrt. Go or Node.
- randomdata 6y ago
  > While the Rust project is from that timeframe, the language internals were rewritten almost from scratch shortly before the 1.0 release That only speaks to priorities, though, which is exactly what was asserted earlier. If Rust's goal was to provide the best convenient web library, rewriting language internals would have been put on the back burner in order to focus on building the web library. However, that is not the Rust project's goal, so it was reasonable for people to choose to focus on something else instead. > Nothing comparable occurred wrt. Go or Node. Go (gc) was rewritten in Go. Completed in, funnily enough, 2015. I'm not convinced that year has any significance. The inception of the project is where the direction of the project is largely established. All of these tools were created to solve a particular set of problems and their course reflects that.