3 ms·
But don’t you think if Rust meant to be so popular and successful wouldn’t be it already, in this time and age? Like other languages since 2000? (Rails, typescr
by scoutt 4y ago
But don’t you think if Rust meant to be so popular and successful wouldn’t be it already, in this time and age? Like other languages since 2000? (Rails, typescript comes to my mind)
Rust has given all its arguments. Has proven its goodness. What do you think it is stopping the world from adopting it?
Another year is passing. The biggest news is that it might be included in the kernel. But it just requires a bad Linus Torvalds morning to become “Rust, the language that wanted but couldn’t“.
- pornel 4y agoI think Rust is already incredibly successful for what it is. Rust isn't aiming to replace Ruby or TypeScript. Rust is focused on being a high-performance systems programming language. It makes big sacrifices to avoid having a garbage collector, VM, or other significant runtime dependency. For maybe 99% of programs having a GC or VM is perfectly fine, and you have lots of nice languages to choose from there. But Rust focuses specifically on areas where Ruby and TypeScript are poor choices or even entirely impossible to use. Rust's popularity has already surpassed other C/C++ alternatives like Ada, D, Nim, Pascal, Cyclone, Checked-C, Zig, and depending how you measure, even Objective-C. It is already confirmed to be in the next Linux release. None of the previous C killers got even close.
- scoutt 4y agoI know the direction Rust is targeting. I wasn’t implying that it means to replace ruby or typescript. I was just pointing out the massive adoption of those (or other) languages in what it seems the same time span. I also know there are differences and that the C/C++ crowd is more difficult to convince.