3 ms·

Never heard about that before but I will dig the matter for sure. That being said I'm sure that rustaceans disagree about the "No Silver Bullet" part (when you

Never heard about that before but I will dig the matter for sure. That being said I'm sure that rustaceans disagree about the "No Silver Bullet" part (when you can compile to WebAssembly, write HTTP / TCP servers, embedded development and much more).

Jare 6y ago
I love Rust, but I'm pretty sure it is not the best language for exploratory programming or quick prototyping.
- lostcolony 6y ago
  Even excluding network and org effects - For distributed problems I'd prefer something like Elixir. This may even be true for web dev (I admit I haven't explored it as much in Rust; just, a lot of what I've had in web services is IO bound, with strong process isolation expectations, and that's perfect for Elixir) For heavy math, Julia or maybe Python + libs. To build a DSL, a Lisp. For something largely integrative of other libraries, whatever language those libraries are built in. For certain types of problem solving and optimization problems, a logic language like Prolog. Etc.
- waiseristy 6y ago
  No no no... You're just not using enough Rc<RefCell<>>'s /s
nicoburns 6y ago
> I'm sure that rustaceans disagree about the "No Silver Bullet" Rustaceans tend to be a pretty practical bunch, so I'd imagine most of them do agree with it. It was also the one part of your post I didn't agree with (if taken literally)
akiselev 6y ago
> That being said I'm sure that rustaceans disagree about the "No Silver Bullet" (when you can compile to WebAssembly, write HTTP / TCP servers, embedded development and much more). I'm certain they don't. For one, Rust can't even be used in a niche but important class of safety/mission critical software until a certain level of certifications (i.e. DO-178C) are reached so by that measure alone it is disqualified. For two, what targets the languages compile to are a necessary but far from sufficient measure of a language's practicality - the most important ones have nothing to do with the language and everything to do with ecosystem and tooling.

Jare 6y ago

I love Rust, but I'm pretty sure it is not the best language for exploratory programming or quick prototyping.

lostcolony 6y ago
Even excluding network and org effects - For distributed problems I'd prefer something like Elixir. This may even be true for web dev (I admit I haven't explored it as much in Rust; just, a lot of what I've had in web services is IO bound, with strong process isolation expectations, and that's perfect for Elixir) For heavy math, Julia or maybe Python + libs. To build a DSL, a Lisp. For something largely integrative of other libraries, whatever language those libraries are built in. For certain types of problem solving and optimization problems, a logic language like Prolog. Etc.
waiseristy 6y ago
No no no... You're just not using enough Rc<RefCell<>>'s /s

nicoburns 6y ago

> I'm sure that rustaceans disagree about the "No Silver Bullet" Rustaceans tend to be a pretty practical bunch, so I'd imagine most of them do agree with it. It was also the one part of your post I didn't agree with (if taken literally)

akiselev 6y ago

> That being said I'm sure that rustaceans disagree about the "No Silver Bullet" (when you can compile to WebAssembly, write HTTP / TCP servers, embedded development and much more). I'm certain they don't. For one, Rust can't even be used in a niche but important class of safety/mission critical software until a certain level of certifications (i.e. DO-178C) are reached so by that measure alone it is disqualified. For two, what targets the languages compile to are a necessary but far from sufficient measure of a language's practicality - the most important ones have nothing to do with the language and everything to do with ecosystem and tooling.