3 ms·

Unfortunately, I'm inclined to agree. Rust lives in this interesting spot where, on paper, it should be superior to anything... but in practice, it's not a goo

Unfortunately, I'm inclined to agree. Rust lives in this interesting spot where, on paper, it should be superior to anything... but in practice, it's not a good choice in most cases. It's very easy to ramp up someone in Go that's had a standard CS education and written C/C++ before. It's also simple enough syntax-wise for someone who knows python well enough to understand references, etc. Its stylistic restrictions and not being OOP-first also mean that codebases are generally readable. Compilation is also extremely straight forward. With Rust, I've found even very experienced C++ folks have a long ramp-up period, the development toolchain is slow, and the ecosystem is limited. Sure, for example there are projects to enable Rust usage with CUDA. But few are inclined to actually bother implementing a new BLAS and GPU accelerated tensor library with Rust. I do think 10 years from now Rust will start getting more adoption as the ecosystem and tooling improve. But it's hard to argue with Go where you'll typically get results that are faster or at worst comparable to Java without the OOP design pattern gobbledygook, simple concurrency model, and simple build process. It's "good enough" for 99% of use cases.

zozbot234 4y ago
Go has bad interop with C/C++ and languages that use the C/C++ ABI (including Rust). You can use cgo as a workaround but it's clunky. So that makes an interesting case for other high level, novice-friendly languages like Nim, Crystal or Val/Vale/Vala.
ModernMech 4y ago
> With Rust, I've found even very experienced C++ folks have a long ramp-up period I've found C++ folks especially have the hardest time with Rust, because they approach it using C++ idioms and habits, then get frustrated when they can't do things the way they're used to. I've had better success teaching Java people Rust. They find it much easier to learn than C++, and I can get them writing idiomatic Rust code quickly, while C++ devs are still trying to get their coding habits past the borrow checker.
- worik 4y ago
  I think everybody has a hard time starting with Rust. Even when you get confident it is still a longer process writing code than C/C++. It makes you think very hard about what you do carelessly in C. But having spent the last few years debugging a lot of Swift code, and a bit of Rust code, that time is worth it I say. Where Rust shines is in the debug cycle. Less of it. Once you learn to surrender to the compiler, you will find true bliss,....

zozbot234 4y ago

Go has bad interop with C/C++ and languages that use the C/C++ ABI (including Rust). You can use cgo as a workaround but it's clunky. So that makes an interesting case for other high level, novice-friendly languages like Nim, Crystal or Val/Vale/Vala.

ModernMech 4y ago

> With Rust, I've found even very experienced C++ folks have a long ramp-up period I've found C++ folks especially have the hardest time with Rust, because they approach it using C++ idioms and habits, then get frustrated when they can't do things the way they're used to. I've had better success teaching Java people Rust. They find it much easier to learn than C++, and I can get them writing idiomatic Rust code quickly, while C++ devs are still trying to get their coding habits past the borrow checker.

worik 4y ago
I think everybody has a hard time starting with Rust. Even when you get confident it is still a longer process writing code than C/C++. It makes you think very hard about what you do carelessly in C. But having spent the last few years debugging a lot of Swift code, and a bit of Rust code, that time is worth it I say. Where Rust shines is in the debug cycle. Less of it. Once you learn to surrender to the compiler, you will find true bliss,....