3 ms·

What about it? What about other languages would you rather see?

• JohnFen 3y ago
  I just find Rust to be very clumsy and high-friction. This isn't a technical criticism, merely a matter of personal taste. But I dislike Rust enough that I've decided that I won't take a job that requires me to use it. Rather than risk getting into an online argument about Rust, though, I'd prefer to focus on the idea that we should have more than one "memory-safe" language.
  • steveklabnik 3y ago
    For what it’s worth, the government stuff this article is based on absolutely focused on the category at large, and not just Rust.
    • bigfishrunning 3y ago
      Being the government, I assume they want to give Ada another go
      • steveklabnik 3y ago
        Ada is mentioned surprisingly little, to be honest. I think that everyone remembers The Ada Mandate and its failure.
  • pgwhalen 3y ago
    > I'd prefer to focus on the idea that we should have more than one "memory-safe" language. The very very large majority of code written today is done so in a memory-safe language. C/C++ is the only mainstream exception. The reasons we associate the phrase "memory-safe" with rust is 1) memory safety has been a solved problems for decades for most programming languages, so we forgot about it, and 2) it was _not_ a solved problem for "systems" languages like C/C++ that rust is directly trying to steal market share from.