4 ms·

> Rust has obviously way less than 1% market share but it's still extremely successful in the niche it's targeting Extremely successful? It's not even mediocre

by pron 4y ago

> Rust has obviously way less than 1% market share but it's still extremely successful in the niche it's targeting Extremely successful? It's not even mediocre. A more realistic description of its current position in its niche domain might be "still hanging in there", "not yet completely written off" or "not out of the race but waiting for a miracle." Rust is barely at 5% of the low-level market. Its performance in its target domain is so abysmal at over seven years old that some who'd want to try it don't because its future looks so uncertain. For comparison, almost every programming language reached or at least neared its all-time peak popularity around age 10. Even if things improve we're looking at a peak of 20% of its target niche before the novelty wears off and other languages join the fray. It needs to double its market share in the next couple of years not to be "extremely successful" but just to stay relevant.

littlestymaar 4y ago
- pron 4y ago
  > I suspect you've pulled this figure out of nowhere Actually, out of job postings, which, however imperfect, is the best metric we have: https://www.devjobsscanner.com/blog/top-8-most-demanded-languages-in-2022/ https://www.devjobsscanner.com/blog/top-8-most-demanded-lang... The numbers are in line with older numbers (i.e. showing some growth), obtained by other people: https://www.hiringlab.org/2019/11/19/todays-top-tech-skills/ https://www.hiringlab.org/2019/11/19/todays-top-tech-skills/ > Oh yeah, I guess Objective-C peaked in 1993, Python peaked in 2001, and Java, PHP, Ruby and JavaScript peaked in 2005. Objective-C is irrelevant (as its adoption is tied to that of another product, kind of like VBA), and with the exception of Python, pretty much yes (I said neared or reached, not reached). Other than Python, no language showed surprising growth after a decade, including C (1983) and C++ (1995). > but it will steadily entrench itself as foundational building block of everything that surrounds you, as it has already started. The evidence suggests otherwise, but things could change. I'm not saying Rust will never succeed, just that current performance and the historical trend don't bode well. Of course, other languages -- Zig, Odin, JAI, and those that don't exist yet -- will also enter the game, and it's not unreasonable to expect that the low-level programming world will experience a similar fragmentation to that of the applications world, where no new language is particularly dominant. I think it is quite possible that Rust will achieve similar success in the low-level world as Go reached in the applications world. Anything beyond that is not out of the realm of possibility, but there are no current indicators to support that. Rust's adoption rate, in its target domain, is -- today -- lower than that of languages that have achieved unusual popularity in that domain or in others. > to bash the language I don't bash the language at all. I bash unfounded claims about it, such as those made in this discussion: that it's achieved extreme success, that all other designs are "fringe", and that it's well established as the best way to achieve correctness. None of these things are known to be true. As for the language itself, I find it too complex and reliant on implicitness for my taste, but I've said over and over that that design is certain to appeal to others. Moreover, I think Rust's "grand idea" of the borrow checker and type-checked lifetimes is nothing short of genius, although I wish it came in a simpler language. I also don't understand people who become so attached to languages that they deny reality. Clojure is one of my favourite languages, but it's silly to deny that its adoption is low; obviously, it's not many people's cup of tea. I find TLA+ to be one the most useful tools for me, but clearly many don't. I don't understand why people who like Rust need make believe that it's doing well, inevitable, or the only reasonable choice, when the truth -- as we know it today -- is that it's none of those things, yet that shouldn't stop anyone from enjoying it, just as Clojure or TLA+'s lack of popularity has no impact on my enjoying them. Why can't people say, "I use Rust because I enjoy it, I find it convenient, useful, interesting, and beautiful?" Why the need to also make up stuff about it? > that they spent such a significant amount of their comment activity on HN This one gave me pause, but I think you'll find that what mostly triggers my HN comments is not so much Rust but claims related to software correctness. I've spent years on this subject, I care deeply about it, and misleading claims about it abound. It's just that recently they've been coming with great frequency from Rust folk (just as before we heard similar claims about Haskell, that triggered me just as much). Sadly, we don't know the most effective approach (or, more likely, a combination of approaches) for software correctness, and incorrect claims to the contrary drive me crazy. It is such a complex topic, with often surprising and perhaps unintuitive realisations (Tony Hoare was certainly surprised and changed his mind on some matters), and the truth is that we simply don't know whether an approach like Rust's or like Zig's lead to more correct software than the other.
  - littlestymaar 4y ago
    > I bash unfounded claims about it, such as those made in this discussion: […] that all other designs are "fringe" You're mischaracterizing Mr Walton's argument here: it's not “non-Rust” design which are fringe, it's “non-memory safe”, and he's arguably correct on that front: no mainstream (even in the broadest sense) language that ever came after C++ was memory-unsafe. And C++ has been progressively abandoned from every domain where its performances characteristics weren't enough of an argument. It is the consensus in PL design, whether you like it or not, and Zig is going against that 30+ years old consensus. Rust is simply the first one to seriously challenge C and C++ on their remaining domains, but memory-safe languages are ubiquitous and have been for years. > that it's achieved extreme success For the domain Rust is aiming at, no other languages has ever reached this level since C++, that's it. Rust hasn't taken the crown, but it's doing things that have not been done before, and it's a hell of a success for a programming language designer! > This one gave me pause, but I think you'll find that what mostly triggers my HN comments is not so much Rust but claims related to software correctness. […] (just as before we heard similar claims about Haskell, that triggered me just as much) I think it's mainly a thinking framework issue. You can view software defects as belonging to one of two classes: (1) design errors, and (2) programming mistakes (typos, copy-paste error, forgetting to call a mandatory function, etc.). TLA+ is a wonderful tool to make sure that your design is correct, but it's helpless against programming mistake. Respectively, the ML family of languages (and Haskell) offer really powerful tools to reduce the number of programming mistakes in shipped code (if it compiles, it has likely no programming errors) but it is completely helpless against broken design. The frequency or gravity of software defects caused by those two kinds of bugs are context dependent but they are both sources of bugs, so in a sense (even discounting memory-safety) Rust is improving software correctness by reducing the number of programming mistakes, even if does nothing (if we set memory issues aside) to reduce design errors. There is no Rust vs TLA+ like there is Coq vs TLA+, Rust doesn't claim it can prove the high level requirements of your problem, it just claim it can prove memory-safety and thread-safety and give you a nice mistake-prone development environment. If you want design correctness, use Rust to implement the design you've validated in TLA+! > Actually, out of job postings, which, however imperfect, is the best metric we have: https://www.devjobsscanner.com/blog/top-8-most-demanded-lang https://www.devjobsscanner.com/blog/top-8-most-demanded-lang... Ctrl-F for Rust on this page returns no results… > Objective-C is irrelevant (as its adoption is tied to that of another product, kind of like VBA), and with the exception of Python, pretty much yes (I said neared or reached, not reached). Other than Python, no language showed surprising growth after a decade, including C (1983) and C++ (1995). That's a surprisingly high number of wrong statements per n-gram… As an aside, in a non-emotional discussion about a programming language, you should probably refrain yourself from insulting one of its designer. Because, yes, saying to a PL designer that his language is “struggling to find relevance” is an insult, the same way calling someone else's mom “fat and ugly”, regardless of the factual accuracy of the statement.
oxnrtr 4y ago
I hope you get the help you need and deserve.
tialaramex 4y ago
> almost every programming language reached or at least neared its all-time peak popularity around age 10 This is an extremely vague claim with so many caveats that it doesn't end up meaning anything yet if you state it confidently you might fool idiots into thinking you said something consequential. It'd be great if there was all the real competition you seem imagine for Rust, but we don't see that. What we see are people pretending that it doesn't matter if they produce crap software using unsafe languages, but their customers are starting to notice.
- pron 4y ago
  I don't think there are many caveats at all, and only a single obvious counterexample (Python). As to "crap software", most of application software these days -- crappy or excellent -- is written in safe languages, and nearly all low-level code is written in unsafe languages, including some of the world's most dependable software, from avionics to OSes. We can say with close to certainty that we can do better than C, but we can also say that full soundness (Idris) is not the answer, so the sweet spot is obviously somewhere in the middle. But we really don't know where exactly -- except that it's not at either end -- or even how wide the sweet spot is (or maybe there are multiple ones, which could be either universally equivalent or dependent on some variables). There's more we don't know about software correctness than what we know -- it's extremely complicated and affected by factors ranging from formal languages and complexity theory to management, economics, psychology, and social psychology -- but we believe noe that the ideas of the 1970s of full soundness being the only path have proven wrong (including an acknowledgment even by Tony Hoare [1]), and, indeed, Rust doesn't adopt soundness fully, and relies on testing, code reviews and other unsound processes as the main means for correctness, like virtually all mainstream programming languages. Anyone who cares about correctness (like me -- https://pron.github.io https://pron.github.io) knows to be very skeptical of any claims for absolute answers, let alone simple ones, on that extremely complex subject. [1]: http://176.9.41.242/docs/math/1996-hoare.pdf http://176.9.41.242/docs/math/1996-hoare.pdf
kjeetgill 4y ago
Geez, this thread man. @pron I was with you before: I think pcwaltons' take on zig is ... Err, unduly negative to the point of rudeness and closed minded — and kinda paints a clear picture for why we're seeing all of the defensiveness in twitter from andrewkelly and the zig folks. But — I think you're coming into it similarly here against Rust. Unnecessarily rude, antagonistic, and on technical points: closed minded. @pcwalton The zig team feels they've made good pragmatic choices around memory safety? Cool. Leave a few reasons why it's different from/and why rust took another approach and your take. Dope. @pron The Rust folk are happy and proud of the inroads they've made in adoption. Dope. Sure, there's different ways to slice the numbers and you feel what? They've taken unearned pride in their work? I'm a fan of all of your work, but man. This thread has been disheartening.
- pron 4y ago
  > you feel what? They've taken unearned pride in their work? Not at all. I think Rust is a groundbreaking and influential language. Regardless of its success in market, it is a great and lasting contribution to programming language design. I am, however, triggered by misleading claims about software correctness -- a subject I care deeply about -- which recently tend to come from the Rust community (replacing Haskell), and then annoyed further by claims of inevitability that I find hard to reconcile with the data. Sorry, but I am human :) The Rust team is rightfully proud of their achievements, in language design, documentation, and also in offering those of us who are interested in software correctness another novel approach to consider.

by pron 4y ago

littlestymaar 4y ago

pron 4y ago
> I suspect you've pulled this figure out of nowhere Actually, out of job postings, which, however imperfect, is the best metric we have: https://www.devjobsscanner.com/blog/top-8-most-demanded-languages-in-2022/ https://www.devjobsscanner.com/blog/top-8-most-demanded-lang... The numbers are in line with older numbers (i.e. showing some growth), obtained by other people: https://www.hiringlab.org/2019/11/19/todays-top-tech-skills/ https://www.hiringlab.org/2019/11/19/todays-top-tech-skills/ > Oh yeah, I guess Objective-C peaked in 1993, Python peaked in 2001, and Java, PHP, Ruby and JavaScript peaked in 2005. Objective-C is irrelevant (as its adoption is tied to that of another product, kind of like VBA), and with the exception of Python, pretty much yes (I said neared or reached, not reached). Other than Python, no language showed surprising growth after a decade, including C (1983) and C++ (1995). > but it will steadily entrench itself as foundational building block of everything that surrounds you, as it has already started. The evidence suggests otherwise, but things could change. I'm not saying Rust will never succeed, just that current performance and the historical trend don't bode well. Of course, other languages -- Zig, Odin, JAI, and those that don't exist yet -- will also enter the game, and it's not unreasonable to expect that the low-level programming world will experience a similar fragmentation to that of the applications world, where no new language is particularly dominant. I think it is quite possible that Rust will achieve similar success in the low-level world as Go reached in the applications world. Anything beyond that is not out of the realm of possibility, but there are no current indicators to support that. Rust's adoption rate, in its target domain, is -- today -- lower than that of languages that have achieved unusual popularity in that domain or in others. > to bash the language I don't bash the language at all. I bash unfounded claims about it, such as those made in this discussion: that it's achieved extreme success, that all other designs are "fringe", and that it's well established as the best way to achieve correctness. None of these things are known to be true. As for the language itself, I find it too complex and reliant on implicitness for my taste, but I've said over and over that that design is certain to appeal to others. Moreover, I think Rust's "grand idea" of the borrow checker and type-checked lifetimes is nothing short of genius, although I wish it came in a simpler language. I also don't understand people who become so attached to languages that they deny reality. Clojure is one of my favourite languages, but it's silly to deny that its adoption is low; obviously, it's not many people's cup of tea. I find TLA+ to be one the most useful tools for me, but clearly many don't. I don't understand why people who like Rust need make believe that it's doing well, inevitable, or the only reasonable choice, when the truth -- as we know it today -- is that it's none of those things, yet that shouldn't stop anyone from enjoying it, just as Clojure or TLA+'s lack of popularity has no impact on my enjoying them. Why can't people say, "I use Rust because I enjoy it, I find it convenient, useful, interesting, and beautiful?" Why the need to also make up stuff about it? > that they spent such a significant amount of their comment activity on HN This one gave me pause, but I think you'll find that what mostly triggers my HN comments is not so much Rust but claims related to software correctness. I've spent years on this subject, I care deeply about it, and misleading claims about it abound. It's just that recently they've been coming with great frequency from Rust folk (just as before we heard similar claims about Haskell, that triggered me just as much). Sadly, we don't know the most effective approach (or, more likely, a combination of approaches) for software correctness, and incorrect claims to the contrary drive me crazy. It is such a complex topic, with often surprising and perhaps unintuitive realisations (Tony Hoare was certainly surprised and changed his mind on some matters), and the truth is that we simply don't know whether an approach like Rust's or like Zig's lead to more correct software than the other.
- littlestymaar 4y ago
  > I bash unfounded claims about it, such as those made in this discussion: […] that all other designs are "fringe" You're mischaracterizing Mr Walton's argument here: it's not “non-Rust” design which are fringe, it's “non-memory safe”, and he's arguably correct on that front: no mainstream (even in the broadest sense) language that ever came after C++ was memory-unsafe. And C++ has been progressively abandoned from every domain where its performances characteristics weren't enough of an argument. It is the consensus in PL design, whether you like it or not, and Zig is going against that 30+ years old consensus. Rust is simply the first one to seriously challenge C and C++ on their remaining domains, but memory-safe languages are ubiquitous and have been for years. > that it's achieved extreme success For the domain Rust is aiming at, no other languages has ever reached this level since C++, that's it. Rust hasn't taken the crown, but it's doing things that have not been done before, and it's a hell of a success for a programming language designer! > This one gave me pause, but I think you'll find that what mostly triggers my HN comments is not so much Rust but claims related to software correctness. […] (just as before we heard similar claims about Haskell, that triggered me just as much) I think it's mainly a thinking framework issue. You can view software defects as belonging to one of two classes: (1) design errors, and (2) programming mistakes (typos, copy-paste error, forgetting to call a mandatory function, etc.). TLA+ is a wonderful tool to make sure that your design is correct, but it's helpless against programming mistake. Respectively, the ML family of languages (and Haskell) offer really powerful tools to reduce the number of programming mistakes in shipped code (if it compiles, it has likely no programming errors) but it is completely helpless against broken design. The frequency or gravity of software defects caused by those two kinds of bugs are context dependent but they are both sources of bugs, so in a sense (even discounting memory-safety) Rust is improving software correctness by reducing the number of programming mistakes, even if does nothing (if we set memory issues aside) to reduce design errors. There is no Rust vs TLA+ like there is Coq vs TLA+, Rust doesn't claim it can prove the high level requirements of your problem, it just claim it can prove memory-safety and thread-safety and give you a nice mistake-prone development environment. If you want design correctness, use Rust to implement the design you've validated in TLA+! > Actually, out of job postings, which, however imperfect, is the best metric we have: https://www.devjobsscanner.com/blog/top-8-most-demanded-lang https://www.devjobsscanner.com/blog/top-8-most-demanded-lang... Ctrl-F for Rust on this page returns no results… > Objective-C is irrelevant (as its adoption is tied to that of another product, kind of like VBA), and with the exception of Python, pretty much yes (I said neared or reached, not reached). Other than Python, no language showed surprising growth after a decade, including C (1983) and C++ (1995). That's a surprisingly high number of wrong statements per n-gram… As an aside, in a non-emotional discussion about a programming language, you should probably refrain yourself from insulting one of its designer. Because, yes, saying to a PL designer that his language is “struggling to find relevance” is an insult, the same way calling someone else's mom “fat and ugly”, regardless of the factual accuracy of the statement.

oxnrtr 4y ago

I hope you get the help you need and deserve.

tialaramex 4y ago

> almost every programming language reached or at least neared its all-time peak popularity around age 10 This is an extremely vague claim with so many caveats that it doesn't end up meaning anything yet if you state it confidently you might fool idiots into thinking you said something consequential. It'd be great if there was all the real competition you seem imagine for Rust, but we don't see that. What we see are people pretending that it doesn't matter if they produce crap software using unsafe languages, but their customers are starting to notice.

pron 4y ago
I don't think there are many caveats at all, and only a single obvious counterexample (Python). As to "crap software", most of application software these days -- crappy or excellent -- is written in safe languages, and nearly all low-level code is written in unsafe languages, including some of the world's most dependable software, from avionics to OSes. We can say with close to certainty that we can do better than C, but we can also say that full soundness (Idris) is not the answer, so the sweet spot is obviously somewhere in the middle. But we really don't know where exactly -- except that it's not at either end -- or even how wide the sweet spot is (or maybe there are multiple ones, which could be either universally equivalent or dependent on some variables). There's more we don't know about software correctness than what we know -- it's extremely complicated and affected by factors ranging from formal languages and complexity theory to management, economics, psychology, and social psychology -- but we believe noe that the ideas of the 1970s of full soundness being the only path have proven wrong (including an acknowledgment even by Tony Hoare [1]), and, indeed, Rust doesn't adopt soundness fully, and relies on testing, code reviews and other unsound processes as the main means for correctness, like virtually all mainstream programming languages. Anyone who cares about correctness (like me -- https://pron.github.io https://pron.github.io) knows to be very skeptical of any claims for absolute answers, let alone simple ones, on that extremely complex subject. [1]: http://176.9.41.242/docs/math/1996-hoare.pdf http://176.9.41.242/docs/math/1996-hoare.pdf

kjeetgill 4y ago

Geez, this thread man. @pron I was with you before: I think pcwaltons' take on zig is ... Err, unduly negative to the point of rudeness and closed minded — and kinda paints a clear picture for why we're seeing all of the defensiveness in twitter from andrewkelly and the zig folks. But — I think you're coming into it similarly here against Rust. Unnecessarily rude, antagonistic, and on technical points: closed minded. @pcwalton The zig team feels they've made good pragmatic choices around memory safety? Cool. Leave a few reasons why it's different from/and why rust took another approach and your take. Dope. @pron The Rust folk are happy and proud of the inroads they've made in adoption. Dope. Sure, there's different ways to slice the numbers and you feel what? They've taken unearned pride in their work? I'm a fan of all of your work, but man. This thread has been disheartening.

pron 4y ago
> you feel what? They've taken unearned pride in their work? Not at all. I think Rust is a groundbreaking and influential language. Regardless of its success in market, it is a great and lasting contribution to programming language design. I am, however, triggered by misleading claims about software correctness -- a subject I care deeply about -- which recently tend to come from the Rust community (replacing Haskell), and then annoyed further by claims of inevitability that I find hard to reconcile with the data. Sorry, but I am human :) The Rust team is rightfully proud of their achievements, in language design, documentation, and also in offering those of us who are interested in software correctness another novel approach to consider.