3 ms·

Well, we aren't actually seeing stabilization when it comes to Rust. Assuming this stabilization actually does happen, whether it happens in public or private

by Pacabel 12y ago

Well, we aren't actually seeing stabilization when it comes to Rust. Assuming this stabilization actually does happen, whether it happens in public or private is irrelevant. What matters is that we've seen C++ stabilize. We've seen Go stabilize. We've seen Scala stabilize. And now we'll likely see Swift stabilize, well before Rust does. They are all serious competitors to Rust. As these other languages continue to evolve, but at the same time remaining usable, the relevance of Rust will continually decrease. It may still have drawing power today. A few years from now, it will have less appeal.

BrandonM 12y ago
I can't tell if you like Rust or hate it. If you hate it, and you are right, then it will simply fade away and your comments will serve nothing more than being able to say, "I told you so." If you are wrong, then you end up looking a bit silly. If you like it, perhaps you should be a little patient and give the creators the benefit of the doubt. No one wants a Rust 3.0 fiasco. It's hard to encounter language issues without implementing a large project in the language. I am happy that they're taking the time to let the implementation of Servo help inform the design of Rust.
enneff 12y ago
This is silly. Rust is on a similar time frame to Go in terms of stabilization (~2.5 years after release). It's hard to make a comparison against Swift, which is a proprietary language developed for years behind closed doors. Presumably they're at 1.0 from the first day by design. You can't do that with open source languages.
TheHydroImpulse 12y ago
* Scala has been around since 2004 (public release) -- 10 years ago. (Not sure when the first stable release was but more than 3 years.) * Go in 2009 (public) -- 6 years ago. 1.0 (first stable release) was released in 2012 so it took 3 years to stabilize. * C++ in 1983 -- 31 years ago. ... It's been a long time. * Clojure in 2007 -- 7 years ago. The creator took 2 1/2 years before releasing it to the public. * Rust in 2012 -- 2 years ago. It's pretty absurd to expect Rust to be stable right from the get go. The difference in all this is that most of those languages were closed before being released. Rust was open at a pretty early state.
- iv_08 12y ago
  You're probably right, but I think I've heard of Rust in public in 2010 and that it was started by Graydon in 2007.
  - kibwen 12y ago
    Rust had been stewing around in Graydon's head for years, but he was never paid to work on it until 2009 (part-time, at that point). And he didn't have any paid employees to help him until 2010 (that would be pcwalton). And as far as I'm concerned, Rust development didn't actually start in earnest until mid-to-late 2011, when the compiler began bootstrapping. And the Rust that we know and love today didn't begin to take shape until 2012, when borrowed references started taking shape. Personally, I consider the 0.1 release in January 2012 to mark Rust's "birthday". Everything prior to that was just gestation. :)

by Pacabel 12y ago

BrandonM 12y ago

I can't tell if you like Rust or hate it. If you hate it, and you are right, then it will simply fade away and your comments will serve nothing more than being able to say, "I told you so." If you are wrong, then you end up looking a bit silly. If you like it, perhaps you should be a little patient and give the creators the benefit of the doubt. No one wants a Rust 3.0 fiasco. It's hard to encounter language issues without implementing a large project in the language. I am happy that they're taking the time to let the implementation of Servo help inform the design of Rust.

enneff 12y ago

This is silly. Rust is on a similar time frame to Go in terms of stabilization (~2.5 years after release). It's hard to make a comparison against Swift, which is a proprietary language developed for years behind closed doors. Presumably they're at 1.0 from the first day by design. You can't do that with open source languages.

TheHydroImpulse 12y ago

* Scala has been around since 2004 (public release) -- 10 years ago. (Not sure when the first stable release was but more than 3 years.) * Go in 2009 (public) -- 6 years ago. 1.0 (first stable release) was released in 2012 so it took 3 years to stabilize. * C++ in 1983 -- 31 years ago. ... It's been a long time. * Clojure in 2007 -- 7 years ago. The creator took 2 1/2 years before releasing it to the public. * Rust in 2012 -- 2 years ago. It's pretty absurd to expect Rust to be stable right from the get go. The difference in all this is that most of those languages were closed before being released. Rust was open at a pretty early state.

iv_08 12y ago
You're probably right, but I think I've heard of Rust in public in 2010 and that it was started by Graydon in 2007.
- kibwen 12y ago
  Rust had been stewing around in Graydon's head for years, but he was never paid to work on it until 2009 (part-time, at that point). And he didn't have any paid employees to help him until 2010 (that would be pcwalton). And as far as I'm concerned, Rust development didn't actually start in earnest until mid-to-late 2011, when the compiler began bootstrapping. And the Rust that we know and love today didn't begin to take shape until 2012, when borrowed references started taking shape. Personally, I consider the 0.1 release in January 2012 to mark Rust's "birthday". Everything prior to that was just gestation. :)