4 ms·
The 1.0 stable release will be pushed back as far as is deemed necessary. Ideally it will be in 14 weeks, but if there's still critical work to be done when we
by Gankro 12y ago
The 1.0 stable release will be pushed back as far as is deemed necessary. Ideally it will be in 14 weeks, but if there's still critical work to be done when we hit that point, we'll wait another 6 weeks. And another. And another. We're not just going to push out whatever we have.
- Juan_Shapiro 12y agoThis is becoming very problematic for those of us who want to use Rust, but who aren't in a position to be constantly updating code we wrote last week so that it works with whatever changes were made to Rust this week. We really, really, really NEED a stable release of Rust. Earlier in 2014 we were hearing that we'd have it by the end of 2014. Earlier this month we were hearing that we'd have it by the end of March 2015. Now we hear it may be much later than that. It's not at all encouraging!
- dbaupp 12y agoThe team is 100% focused on getting 1.0 out; I've been in the meetings, I've been sitting next to other core devs: they are putting their heart and soul into making sure 1.0 is soon and is high-quality. Pushing it out before we think it is ready just because some people want to use it will result in stabilising a suboptimal language and so trade-off the long-term experience for the 5 years (or 5 decades?) for some short-term gratification.
- blt 12y agoAnd end up with bad design choices for the sake of speed? No thanks. I'd rather wait as long as needed to perfect the design. Rust won't succeed unless its benefits over C++ are dramatic, obvious, and uncontroversial. I'm fine using C++ for a few more years if it means Rust will be amazing and not just OK.