4 ms·

this seems somewhat unlikely to me. My guess is that we'll see a continued split where Rust takes the low level like OS kernels and cryptography that need time

this seems somewhat unlikely to me. My guess is that we'll see a continued split where Rust takes the low level like OS kernels and cryptography that need time consistency and adversarial security guarantees, while most higher level programs (apps/databases etc) are written in fast garage collected languages (e.g C#/Julia).

fooker 9mo ago
> this seems somewhat unlikely to me. Rust is literally the fast stab at making a memory safe systems language. Do you really think we are never going to be able to design a better one?
- LexiMax 9mo ago
  > Do you really think we are never going to be able to design a better one? I didn't want to learn C++. I learned it anyway because it was the best in the niches I was interested in, as well as there being existing programs that I wanted to contribute to that were written in C++. I can state for a certainty that if I had waited around for the perfect language before making the leap, it would have negatively affected both my career and hobbyist dalliances.
  - fooker 9mo ago
    > I had waited around Did I mention waiting around? You should always use the right tool for the job, and right now if you need a memory safe systems programming language for a greenfield project, Rust is the tool. My point is that Rust's ergonomic issues will see it replaced when someone figures out a way to net similar advantages in a friendlier language. It's amusing to see strong beliefs on this being impossible!
- timschmidt 9mo ago
  > Rust is literally the fast stab at making a memory safe systems language. Graydon started developing Rust in 2006, 20 years ago. The guy is somewhat famously a compiler buff with experience in a half dozen of them. What about that comes across as a "fast stab" to you?