2 ms·

There seem to be plenty of valid points here. I just wonder if it needs a little more review... Is the year mentioned in "The Cloudflare Paradox" section corre

There seem to be plenty of valid points here. I just wonder if it needs a little more review... Is the year mentioned in "The Cloudflare Paradox" section correct? Same question for the "2035 compile / 2015 code" cell in the lower-left side of the table in "The Elephant in the Room: Rust Has No Standard" section.

steveklabnik 11mo ago
The cloudflare date is incorrect. The cell is based on making it up. It’s suggesting a number in 2035. We aren’t in 2035 yet. I don’t think these points are good. They wildly extrapolate from some things that are technically correct, but miss nuance. As one example, in that table, Rust is marked as “pay ferrocene” in red while C is marked as “yes.” Yet you’ll also pay for a qualified C compiler. These are equivalent. It also pretends that an ISO specification matters specifically, as opposed to anything else. You’d believe that a C++ codebase will compile without modification indefinitely in the future simply because it has an ISO specification, but in the real world, both the specification and implementations have non-zero breakage, just like how Rust doesn’t have an ISO specification yet has very little real word breakage.