3 ms·

To be fair, we in the rust community are telling people to wait for 1.0 unless they are okay with constantly updating their code as we clean up the language for

by erickt 12y ago

To be fair, we in the rust community are telling people to wait for 1.0 unless they are okay with constantly updating their code as we clean up the language for our first release. It's fair though to speak about momentum. Comparing Go's contributor list (https://golang.org/CONTRIBUTORS https://golang.org/CONTRIBUTORS) with ours (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/AUTHORS.txt https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/AUTHORS.txt) has us with about 100 more than Go. I'm not saying our community is better than Go's or anything, but I'm certainly impressed a new language has been able to gain so much interest so quickly. When I first started contributing a couple years ago, we had like 15 people in our irc channel. Now we got over 500.

Dewie 12y ago
That makes a lot of sense to me; Rust is a much more ambitious and interesting - from a programming language point of view - project than Go. I think that it as a language would appeal much more to the prototypical "language geek" (or at least the impression that I have of such people, including myself). That's not to slam Rust for being "over-complex"/"ivory tower", or slam Go for being "simplistic". But Rust tries to solve such a hard problem - be expressive without any unnecessary overhead, retain memory safety - that it seems to naturally lead to a design and language that appeals to people that are interested in programming languages "for their own sake". Meanwhile Go tries to be sufficiently expressive and then get out of your way to solve whatever problem in whatever domain that you're trying to solve.
pron 12y ago
Oh, I didn't mean to criticize either of those languages, just to point out that SV developers are a tiny, tiny minority among the software community, and their early adopter style is not shared by the industry at large. Switching programming languages carries immense costs (probably in the billions of dollars across the industry), and companies make it only when the benefits are dramatic and incontrovertible. Most companies wouldn't even consider switching a programming language more than once in a decade, and some would only consider such a switch every 15 years or so.

by erickt 12y ago

Dewie 12y ago

That makes a lot of sense to me; Rust is a much more ambitious and interesting - from a programming language point of view - project than Go. I think that it as a language would appeal much more to the prototypical "language geek" (or at least the impression that I have of such people, including myself). That's not to slam Rust for being "over-complex"/"ivory tower", or slam Go for being "simplistic". But Rust tries to solve such a hard problem - be expressive without any unnecessary overhead, retain memory safety - that it seems to naturally lead to a design and language that appeals to people that are interested in programming languages "for their own sake". Meanwhile Go tries to be sufficiently expressive and then get out of your way to solve whatever problem in whatever domain that you're trying to solve.

pron 12y ago

Oh, I didn't mean to criticize either of those languages, just to point out that SV developers are a tiny, tiny minority among the software community, and their early adopter style is not shared by the industry at large. Switching programming languages carries immense costs (probably in the billions of dollars across the industry), and companies make it only when the benefits are dramatic and incontrovertible. Most companies wouldn't even consider switching a programming language more than once in a decade, and some would only consider such a switch every 15 years or so.