5 ms·

Rust and Go are not similar or competing. They are both new, but aside from that the differences are huge. So if a project uses one, that doesn't mean the other

• DASD 14y ago
  Indeed they are not similar but wildly different tools are often used in a similar or competing use cases(eg. the blog's post of the company using Ruby and conversion to Go). I had asked because if you were to reverse the usage do you think Google is likely using much Rust since it is developing Go? Just to clarify, I see a bright future for both languages.
  • tmzt 14y ago
    It would be interesting to see Rust used in Android in some of the parts that are now C or C++.
• steveklabnik 14y ago
  The Rust team agrees: https://github.com/mozilla/rust/wiki/Doc-language-FAQ https://github.com/mozilla/rust/wiki/Doc-language-FAQ (control-f for 'this Google language')
• stcredzero 14y ago
  > Rust and Go are not similar or competing. Rust is more "kitchen sink" (done as elegantly and cleanly as possible) and Go is more minimalist.
  • pcwalton 14y ago
    Being "kitchen sink" isn't a design goal of Rust. Rather, Rust is a lower-level, safer language. Go is higher-level. Rust strives to be as minimalist as possible without sacrificing the goals of low-level control over memory and C++ performance (optional GC), memory safety, race-free concurrency, and type safety (no null pointers).
    • duaneb 14y ago
      I don't think he meant kitchen sink, more that there are fundamental aspects from many parts of languages that are bound together well, which makes > Rust strives to be as minimalist as possible without sacrificing the goals of low-level control over memory and C++ performance (optional GC), memory safety, race-free concurrency, and type safety (no null pointers). somewhat funny.
      • codygman 14y ago
        Why funny? (coming from someone who's thinking about giving Rust a try)
        • duaneb 14y ago
          He said "rust doesn't have the kitchen sink", and then listed the kitchen sink. Rust is awesome, you should use it.
          • codygman 14y ago
            Alright, I'll download the compiler/etc right now :D
• jbooth 14y ago
  They're not similar at all, but both were designed to replace C++. That sort of means that they're competing for the use-case of "things I would write in C++ if it wasn't a god-awful nightmare to do so". From there, though, you're right that they take very, very different approaches.
  • azakai 14y ago
    > They're not similar at all, but both were designed to replace C++. In practice, the main use for Go appears to be like this story - an alternative to RoR, Node, Python/Django, etc. - and not a C++ alternative. Go and Rust may both start from the idea of doing C++ or something similar "right", but end up in very different places.
  • coldtea 14y ago
    >They're not similar at all, but both were designed to replace C++. Well, Rust WAS designed to replace C++, both in the intention behind its design and the way it was done. Go designers had this vague intention of "replacing C++", but the way they have designed the language they only really replace Java or some scripting language. Which they admit (the get mostly Python etc converts than C/C++ converts).
• laut 14y ago
  Go is from 2009. Ruby is from 1995. Although it took about 10 years for Ruby to really start to be popular in the English speaking world.
  • gnuvince 14y ago
    Rust, not Ruby.
• Symmetry 14y ago
  The way I would put it is that Go was designed to incorporate some of the simplicity and speed of C as well as the ease of use of Python, while Rust was designed to combine the speed and flexibility of C++ with the safety of Haskell.
  • steveklabnik 14y ago
    ... and the concurrency of Erlang. (and OCaml might be more apt than Haskell).