4 ms·

Dealing with typos at runtime is a waste of intellectual effort, and yet no one claims Python is unsuitable for high level projects because of that. There's a

• amelius 5y ago
  This is true. In the end all programming languages are Turing complete, so you can't really argue about the power of one language over another in terms of what projects you can do with them. This is about ergonomics, and my point is that there are better alternatives with a lower cognitive load, freeing your brain to think about high level architecture, or other important things such as security, or reducing time to market, improving maintainability, etc. I have nothing against Rust. I'm sure it is a great language for systems work. I would love to see a language combining the power of Rust with that of e.g. Haskell, so Rust code could be used in the inner loops and Haskell code could orchestrate the high-level parts of the application. But let's not fool ourselves that Rust is the best choice of language for just about any project, which is the impression you get from all of these Rust-oriented blogposts on HN lately.
  • rhn_mk1 5y ago
    I think the big deal here is that Rust is the best language choice for many tasks among the languages an average coder might know. For me, it's taken over a whole bunch of tasks for which I'd have whipped out Python before, which really surprised me. But it's absolutely not perfect at those tasks. Worse, now I see how Python was never perfect at them. I wish I knew which language combines their advantages for prototyping high level things.