3 ms·
It's clear that Rust isn't stable yet, and won't be for a long time. It's impossible for me or anyone else to be incorrect when we point out that very real fact
by Pacabel 12y ago
It's clear that Rust isn't stable yet, and won't be for a long time. It's impossible for me or anyone else to be incorrect when we point out that very real fact.
If you feel the need to vote down perfectly legitimate comments merely expressing a truth that you dislike, so be it. I can't stop you, and the others you've chosen to target can't stop you, either. However, reality will be reality, regardless of the voting. Rust will still remain unstable no matter how many down arrows you click.
- dbaupp 12y agoThe problem is not saying that Rust is currently unstable, it is you taking the leap to saying that Rust will never be stable.
- Pacabel 12y agoWell, the trend so far has been a serious lack of language and library stability, and there's very little to suggest that the situation will change any time soon. Stability isn't something that happens overnight. It takes a lot of discipline, and this discipline has to be ingrained within the very project itself. I don't see this as the case with Rust.
- kibwen 12y agoIf you were following Rust at all you would know that they are aggressively rejecting requests for new features in order to produce a stable release, and have five full-time developers working on clearing release blockers.