3 ms·

> Rust will invariably introduce new issues, completely unforeseen as of now. And a new, modern programming language will appear in 2050 or 2060 solving those i

> Rust will invariably introduce new issues, completely unforeseen as of now. And a new, modern programming language will appear in 2050 or 2060 solving those issues, and the rewrite cycle will begin all over again. And people will wonder how come anyone could get anything done in C. The question is not "will some new hotness come along to usurp the old hotness," the question is "will the new hotness make software any better." Unless the answer to this question is a resounding "no" (even "probably not" is acceptable), maybe people should try. Please stop complaining that people want to find ways to pioneer in their fields rather than just retreading old ground.

hedora 6y ago
Interestingly, modern C++ is the closest production language there is to Rust in terms of compile time safety guarantees (though C++ is unsafe by default, and that’s a huge problem), type expressiveness, runtime behavior, and so on. Also, many of the best Rust ideas have been backported to it. I wonder if it’ll still be in second place after whatever new hotness replaces Rust in a decade.
- johnisgood 6y ago
  I would say Ada/SPARK is much closer to compile-time safety guarantees than both C++ and Rust, along with type expressiveness, runtime behavior, and so forth. I wish more people knew about the language and about its current state.
  - SubjectToChange 6y ago
    Ada did get a surprising number of things right. And SPARK is a tremendous asset to the Ada ecosystem. It really could have been where C++ is today. However, I can't see Ada thriving without fixing their licensing. But on the other hand I don't know how well the Ada vendors could survive without charging for their compilers/toolchains.
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      Many associate C++ uptake to Microsoft, however they completely miss the point that C++ is a platform language. It was developed on the same building as UNIX (so to speak), as C pre-processor with no additional requirements on C's toolchain. That made it quickly available across all UNIX platforms and respective toolchains. Then it followed C as younger brother alternative in any C toolchain that mattered. A few UNIX vendors, e.g. Sun, did offer Ada compilers, but it was naturally an additional software package to buy, and not everything was available, thus additional hurdles to write FFI bindings. Not bundling a language with a platform is always an issue with system programming languages.

hedora 6y ago

Interestingly, modern C++ is the closest production language there is to Rust in terms of compile time safety guarantees (though C++ is unsafe by default, and that’s a huge problem), type expressiveness, runtime behavior, and so on. Also, many of the best Rust ideas have been backported to it. I wonder if it’ll still be in second place after whatever new hotness replaces Rust in a decade.

johnisgood 6y ago
I would say Ada/SPARK is much closer to compile-time safety guarantees than both C++ and Rust, along with type expressiveness, runtime behavior, and so forth. I wish more people knew about the language and about its current state.
- SubjectToChange 6y ago
  Ada did get a surprising number of things right. And SPARK is a tremendous asset to the Ada ecosystem. It really could have been where C++ is today. However, I can't see Ada thriving without fixing their licensing. But on the other hand I don't know how well the Ada vendors could survive without charging for their compilers/toolchains.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Many associate C++ uptake to Microsoft, however they completely miss the point that C++ is a platform language. It was developed on the same building as UNIX (so to speak), as C pre-processor with no additional requirements on C's toolchain. That made it quickly available across all UNIX platforms and respective toolchains. Then it followed C as younger brother alternative in any C toolchain that mattered. A few UNIX vendors, e.g. Sun, did offer Ada compilers, but it was naturally an additional software package to buy, and not everything was available, thus additional hurdles to write FFI bindings. Not bundling a language with a platform is always an issue with system programming languages.