5 ms·
It seems obvious to me that eventually someone is going to write a compiler for a language that delivers on rust's main value propositions (fast native code/mem
by thefaux 4y ago
It seems obvious to me that eventually someone is going to write a compiler for a language that delivers on rust's main value propositions (fast native code/memory safety/data race protection) but that compiles at least 10x faster than rust for most problems. Initially the generated code might be somewhat slower than rust on average, but I think developers will find they would happily trade some runtime perf for such a dramatic compile time improvement. The runtime performance gap will also narrow over time and eventually probably even supplant rust for most common problems. Rust itself is already too complex and weighed down by many competing interests that will prevent it from being the best possible version of itself. But it also has many self owns such as objectively bad syntactic decisions (like angle brackets for generics) that were made to appease intransigent c programmers.
- josephg 4y agoYeah; a simpler language would also be easier to learn. Rust is experimenting with an awful lot of new ideas. I imagine rust's successor (whenever that happens) will take the best ideas from rust - including the best design for a borrow checker - and build a much simpler language around that. Rust is the first language in its category. It won't be the best language we ever make in that category.