3 ms·
Resort to name-calling if you really must. None of that will change reality. Rust is not stable, as you yourself have readily admitted. What I've unfortunately
by Pacabel 12y ago
Resort to name-calling if you really must. None of that will change reality.
Rust is not stable, as you yourself have readily admitted. What I've unfortunately had to be pointing out for such a long time now is absolutely correct.
We've been told that we can expect Rust 1.0 by the end of the year. As each month passes, it becomes less and less likely that we will actually see this. We are still seeing significant change, even as recently as the past month.
I think Rust could potentially be very useful. But that requires stability, and that in turn is something that appears more and more elusive each day.
It's easy to say that Swift isn't a competitor to Rust, but the reality is that it is. And unlike Rust, it will very, very likely be usable for serious apps within a few months. It will see the adoption that Rust could have had, had it been usable, further reducing Rust's future changes.
- dbaupp 12y agoWhat have you been pointing out for so long? That Rust is unstable? That many people/companies won't use Rust while it is unstable? That there are other languages people can use instead? All of those are highly uncontroversial and universally acknowledged by experienced Rust users. Also, I don't understand how you have lept from Rust being unstable now, to Rust never being stable. A 1.0 release by the end of the year doesn't seem at all unreasonable to me; I think you are expecting more from it than what the Rust team is looking for (and have stated publicly repeatedly): stabilising the core language. Of course, a stable release of that form will still mean some libraries may be unstable (and so that Rust would be unsuitable for many corporate developments). These libraries will be stabilised progressively and iteratively.