4 ms·
> on the Rust side, both actix and ntex are too immature as neither’s hit 1.0 yet Maybe so, but we've been running https://pernos.co https://pernos.co on Actix
by roca 6y ago
> on the Rust side, both actix and ntex are too immature as neither’s hit 1.0 yet
Maybe so, but we've been running https://pernos.co https://pernos.co on Actix for a couple of years now with no issues. We didn't have to use "unsafe" either, and I understand that Actix's use of "unsafe" internally has also been significantly reduced.
Tokio's "warp" is much less mature than Actix AFAICT. Version numbers can be misleading.
- lstamour 6y agoThat's a good point. And since AWS put forward their support for Rust recently, along with Microsoft's interest and the new Rust Foundation, the future is looking rather bright for Rust. But it reminds me still of the early days of React, the early days of TypeScript, or the early days of Apache, or PHP before Laravel, when there was room for a lot of competition and the "best practices" had yet to work themselves out. Part of it is that Rust as a language moves quickly, I agree, but there's right now a lot of confusion between picking the pre-1.0 Actix or the post-1.0 Tokio, with AWS seemingly endorsing Tokio but with practical web development restricted to Actix Web for now. This confusion highlights the risky nature of pre-1.0 web servers -- it's not that you can't be productive and stable, but you might need to keep living on the edge for a long time. If you have a small service, that's fine. If you're looking for an API that won't change for 3 years or more, it's harder to suggest Rust at this time...