> Just that Emacs was written almost a half century ago, and is still thriving despite being written in a language (LISP) that is basically obsolete. Yes, this

> Just that Emacs was written almost a half century ago, and is still thriving despite being written in a language (LISP) that is basically obsolete. Yes, this is true. I still stand by my point that the longevity of a language has implications for the longevity of most projects. It's a probabilistic statement with exceptions, and Emacs is exceptional. It's also worth noting that Emacs is written in Emacs Lisp, a language which is regularly updated. > Look at how quickly Perl (so promising to begin with) disappeared to be replaced by Python. Don't get me wrong, Rust's longevity is a guess. It's in the Linux kernel now, so that gives me hope that learning Rust is paying off. Cargo is fantastically nicer to use than most other languages tooling. If I'm wrong, then that means something even nicer than cargo is around, which would be very nice indeed. > If the likelihood of being around in 20 years ... was the main decision making factor, then Java would probably be a safer bet. This is true, but the premise doesn't hold. The longevity isn't the main decision making factor. No decision is even being made, and you're arguing against a point nobody is making. Please refer to my original comment: I'm only listing reasons why I like knowing something is written in Rust.