[weberc2]

I'm a former C++ dev. I've made repeated attempts to learn Rust over the last few years. I now feel like I'm capable of building things with much effort and frustration and constant Googling, but with a small fraction of the effort. By comparison, I got to the same point in Go in an afternoon.

[pcwalton]

I'm not interested in debating which language is easier to learn for C++ programmers. I'm pushing back against the (clearly false, IMO) idea that adopting Rust is a mistake.

[weberc2]

In the context of the conversation, adopting Rust over Go is a mistake for the majority of applications primarily because of the difference in learning curve. Of course there are other factors, and not all applications are equal. I threw in my C++ background to demonstrate that I'm quite capable of thinking in the low-level terms demanded of Rust programmers, and my learning curve was still very large. You can disagree if you like, but my comment was related.

[pcwalton]

I don't agree that the learning curve difference (which is a temporary cost that decreases over time) is high enough to outweigh the benefits in the "majority" of cases that could benefit from Rust (and reap those benefits long-term). I respect your experience, but it doesn't invalidate mine, which has held up with many people I've seen get up to speed with Rust.

[weberc2]

I never claimed my experience invalidated yours; you asked for experience that was contrary to yours, so I offered mine.

[Thaxll]

It's about the learning curve, especially people coming from Python to build websites, I mean seriously you would recommend Rust over Go to someone that build api / websites? It's telling someone that used to Ruby to go the C++ way, terrible idea for Python/ruby.

[pcwalton]

> I mean seriously you would recommend Rust over Go to someone that build api / websites?

Depends on the Web site. I wouldn't particularly recommend either for most CRUD apps.