4 ms·
You're citing language demand as a result of incumbent industry usage. That's an inherently weighted metric because existing products are not (contrary to what
by Klonoar 11mo ago
You're citing language demand as a result of incumbent industry usage. That's an inherently weighted metric because existing products are not (contrary to what some Rust zealots might want) going to be rewritten in Rust for no reason.
i.e, it's not rocket science - languages with 10-20+ year history are embedded in the industry. News at 11. ;P
Popularity - as the term is actually used - is one where Rust is fine.
- pron 11mo agoI was comparing Rust to the popularity of other languages at the same age. Its adoption rate is not fine for a language that old if it aims to one day be as popular as C++ is today (or even as popular as Go is today).
- Klonoar 11mo agoThe only modern language you listed is Go, which had Google backing it and is a simpler language overall. The rest achieved their popularity when the industry was smaller and there wasn't as much competition.
- pron 11mo agoThose of us who were programming in the nineties and before remember there was a lot of competition [1]; not less than today. It's just that not much of it survived to this day in any popular form. Also, C++ didn't have any stronger backer than Rust, at least not at first. (BTW, Go's introduction was closer in time to Python's or Java's than it is to today; both Go and Rust are already fairly old languages) [1]: In the application space, there were VB, Delphi, Smalltalk, and a host of other so-called "RAD languages". In the scripting space, Perl was dominant. In the low-level space, we had the entire Pascal family, with Ada and, to a lesser extent, Oberon.