3 ms·

Although all of those things are true, I think the main point being made is why choose Rust for that, instead of Go, .NET, etc, any of which offer everything yo

by vsnf 3y ago

Although all of those things are true, I think the main point being made is why choose Rust for that, instead of Go, .NET, etc, any of which offer everything you've outlined as being worth having, while having fewer of the downsides of Rust.

inferiorhuman 3y ago
any of which offer everything you've outlined They don't, that's the "problem". Off the top of my head dependency management in Go is not best in class to put it charitably. .NET will tie you more closely to Windows. Sure, mono is a thing but you'll have more packages to choose from and fewer compatibility issues running .NET on Windows.
- foobarbaz33 3y ago
  Mono? 2000 and late called and want their .NET implementation back. Now it's all about the .NET formerly known as "Core".
- Merad 3y ago
  Your knowledge of the .Net ecosystem is a bit out of date. It's had first class support for mac and linux for 7-8 years now.
  - scns 3y ago
    First class support on Linux and Mac with caveats. Zero snark intended.
- Paradigma11 3y ago
  Web development for .NET is multiplatform for quite some years now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET Mono is mostly only relevant if you need platform specific capabilities that wont be covered in .NET.
LinXitoW 3y ago
To me, one thing missing from most popular web languages is the single best part of Rust: A well-defined handling of the non-happy path. I'm talking about things like exhaustive "switches", built-in, ENFORCED handling of "missing" values (null, undefined), and finally useful error handling. I actually don't need any of the baremetal features of Rust. It's just that most of it's "zero-cost" abstractions are still far superior to those of other languages.
- kaba0 3y ago
  Haskell, Scala, F#, OCaml. (Some dislike it, but Java’s checked exceptions are exact homologous of result types)
  - marcosdumay 3y ago
    The problem with Java exceptions is that they have very poor generic support. Outside of that, yeah they just differ in very low-level aspects that most developers don't even know about.

by vsnf 3y ago

inferiorhuman 3y ago

any of which offer everything you've outlined They don't, that's the "problem". Off the top of my head dependency management in Go is not best in class to put it charitably. .NET will tie you more closely to Windows. Sure, mono is a thing but you'll have more packages to choose from and fewer compatibility issues running .NET on Windows.

foobarbaz33 3y ago
Mono? 2000 and late called and want their .NET implementation back. Now it's all about the .NET formerly known as "Core".
Merad 3y ago
Your knowledge of the .Net ecosystem is a bit out of date. It's had first class support for mac and linux for 7-8 years now.
- scns 3y ago
  First class support on Linux and Mac with caveats. Zero snark intended.
Paradigma11 3y ago
Web development for .NET is multiplatform for quite some years now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET Mono is mostly only relevant if you need platform specific capabilities that wont be covered in .NET.

LinXitoW 3y ago

To me, one thing missing from most popular web languages is the single best part of Rust: A well-defined handling of the non-happy path. I'm talking about things like exhaustive "switches", built-in, ENFORCED handling of "missing" values (null, undefined), and finally useful error handling. I actually don't need any of the baremetal features of Rust. It's just that most of it's "zero-cost" abstractions are still far superior to those of other languages.

kaba0 3y ago
Haskell, Scala, F#, OCaml. (Some dislike it, but Java’s checked exceptions are exact homologous of result types)
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  The problem with Java exceptions is that they have very poor generic support. Outside of that, yeah they just differ in very low-level aspects that most developers don't even know about.