4 ms·
> I would rather use Rust for the fact it's development is not tied to a big tech company which could abandon it if they liked. Go's development is tied to Goo
by rvz 9mo ago
> I would rather use Rust for the fact it's development is not tied to a big tech company which could abandon it if they liked.
Go's development is tied to Google Inc. and is widely used at Google. Same with Microsoft's C# with .NET and Swift isn't very different to this as long as it is open source.
So this really is a moot point.
- sealeck 9mo agoGo has a critical mass that Swift clearly doesn't (i.e. there are many, many companies who have net profits of >$1bn and write most of their server software in Go). Additionally Google isn't selling Go as a product in the same way as Apple does Swift (and where Google does publish public Go APIs it also tends to use them in the same way as their users do, so the interests are more aligned)...
- behnamoh 9mo ago> Additionally Google isn't selling Go as a product in the same way as Apple does Swift Hmm, Apple isn't selling Swift as a product either; it's literally what they needed for their own platform, much like how GOOG needed Go for their server works.
- cube00 9mo agoIMHO your case for a moot point would be stronger if you also mentioned which company you feel is tied to Rust in the same way as the other languages you've mentioned.
- kibwen 9mo agoObjective-C had its own open source source implementations, along with a better cross-platform story than Swift has ever had, and yet Apple's abandonment still managed to reduce it to irrelevance.
- thayne 9mo agoI have similar concerns about c# as I do about swift. I'm less concerned about go, because unlike swift and c# it was designed from the beginning to be cross-platform and if anything Linux is the best supported OS. But barely so. Also, if Google were to discontinue support, or change the license, or do something else disruptive, I have more faith that the ecosystem would create a fork to continue the language. FWIW, my biggest concern isn't that the language would be completely abandoned, it is that the company would diminish or drop support for tooling on OSes and editors and IDEs that compete with the company's products (Mac OS and Xcode for apple, Windows and Visual Studio for MS).
- bonesss 9mo agoMicrosoft’s market position is reliant on Linux and access to Linux development to keep Azure competitive. Cross-platform capabilities on the .Net VM are critical to compete with the JVM and associated databases. C# has been windows-first for a while, but the core cross-platform capabilities are not going to disappear, the tooling is all CLI based/capable now, the entanglements tend to be platform and service based. That said, F# was years ahead of C# in features C# is still chasing, and is driven mostly by the open source community. That community is more in academic and finance areas where Linux-first is common. The language is standardized and plugged into VM improvements over time. Frankly, I see the lesser degree of entanglement with MS corporate interests as a boon for the language and its ecosystems long-term utility.
- thayne 9mo agoFrom what I understand, LSP support for c# isn't very good, and is from third parties, not MS themselves, because they want you to us Visual Studio on Windows.
- int_19h 9mo agoMicrosoft provides C# LSP for VSCode (https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=ms-dotnettools.csdevkit https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=ms-dotne...). The problem is that it's closed source, and its license specifically prohibits its use with anything other than VSCode. Unfortunately, this is becoming the usual modus operandi for first-party Microsoft extensions for VSCode for all the talk about how they "love open source".