[valenterry]

> I get worried at any potential signal that Rust is headed in that direction. Which it might not be.

I think they do - but that's good! We need a language like Rust to write operation systems, databases, proxys, webservers, hey maybe even browsers. All the things that are widely used and need to be high performant and secure.

Maybe you are using Rust, but you actually really want a different language, one that doesn't focus so much on low level / performance?

Haskell or Scala or F# come to my mind. I'm listing statically typed languages, because I assume you like those (otherwise, why Rust and not sticking to Elixir).

[pdimitar]

> Maybe you are using Rust, but you actually really want a different language, one that doesn't focus so much on low level / performance?

That is very possible. But utilizing my experience and intuition, very rarely have I seen such meticulous and relentless pursuit for efficiency and a compiler that will kill most of your bugs after it successfully compiles your program like Rust. Maybe Haskell and OCaml are it as well but they have plethora of problems that Rust doesn't have. Maybe Nim and Zig? Only heard good things about those but never tried them.

> Haskell or Scala or F# come to my mind. I'm listing statically typed languages, because I assume you like those (otherwise, why Rust and not sticking to Elixir).

Personal / professional development. I started with C/C++ and Java 19 years ago and moved to dynamic languages at least 12 years ago and I felt that I want to have such a powerful language like Rust in my toolbelt again.

[valenterry]

I would say Haskell does a much better job but at the cost of much harder to predict performance.

Scala (which I use professionally) comes close to Haskell, but you need more discipline, because it has e.g. the concept of "null" and you have to avoid it.

What I like about Scala is that it has a sweet spot in the sense of a good number of jobs (way more than Haskell or Rust) and also having very good tooling (better than rust, not as good as Java though).

And Scala gives you this "if it compiles, it works" feel. But it has a steep learning curve.

I think F# is also great and underrated - same for OCaml. But because the languages are even more niche, they have less good tooling etc. What plethora of problems are you referring to btw?

Nim sounds exciting, but I've never used it either.

> I felt that I want to have such a powerful language like Rust in my toolbelt again.

If you are up for systems development, I would stick with Rust tbh. I think it will offer you some good job opportunities down the road and in general have a bright future. I don't think other languages like C++ or D can really compete with Rust in the long term.

Otherwise, I recommend to Haskell or Scala a try, depending on if you favor the learning experience or the practical gain.

[pdimitar]

> What plethora of problems are you referring to btw?

- Haskell: literal hundreds of possible combinations of compiler variants. Immediate turn-off.

- Haskell: several String types. I understand the lazy / non-lazy distinction but I can't understand why in 2021 you have C strings and UTF8 strings separately. I am not seeing much Haskell adoption in embedded contexts where every byte counts. Felt like a meaningless academic pursuit and not a practical concern.

- OCaml: lack of actual parallelism. I am following the Multicore OCaml monthly reports but at this point I accepted that it's best to just wait for OCaml 5.0 which promises it will have Multicore baked in (earliest timeline: end of 2021, so I don't know likely mid-2022?). Also I don't like the mixed paradigms. Even if I would appreciate using a `for` loop every now and then I think I shouldn't be given that freedom. But that last one is a minor gripe actually.

- OCaml: strings again. Having UTF-8 strings there is a challenge. In 2021 there is absolutely no excuse to introduce friction on such topic. UTF-8 strings must exist. I know I can use the libiconv bridge and it's not what I am talking about. I am talking first-class support.

- Haskell and OCaml tooling felt behind excellent tools like `mix` (Elixir) and `cargo` (Rust) but I hear that they are constantly improving and are easier and more intuitive these days. Hope my impressions are outdated there!

There were others but I only managed to remember those above.

[valenterry]

Ah yeah, the Haskell problems you mentioned are indeed annoying. However I think the compiler extensions are actually not a bad idea. Haskell is an old language and the extensions allowed it to improve over time.

Languages like Rust or Go will find themselves in a spot where improving the language will become hard - same for Java and look how slowly the language improved and improves still.

Can't say so much to your remarks about OCaml, but was interesting for me to read.

So, why not try Scala or Crystal? :)

[pdimitar]

Mostly because I don't feel they will teach me something new. But I might be mistaken, who knows.

Another factor is the so-called T-shaped skills. I feel I've been going wide (learning every possible technology and paradigm under the sun) for waaaaaaay too long. I now want to focus on several skills and learn them to near perfection before going wide again.

[valenterry]

Gotcha!

If you already learned pure functional programming through Haskell, then I would not recommend to learn Scala to broaden your overall language-skills.

If you haven't really done the pure functional programming thing, then I recommend to learn it. Especially the way of doing concurreny would be very very different from how it's done in both Rust and Elixir. Scala also has actors, but the other way of doing concurrent programming is more interesting. For example, check this here: https://zio.dev/docs/datatypes/datatypes_stm

This is something you don't have in Rust or Elixir at all (to my knowledge).

But if it's really just for the sake of learning, I think choosing Haskell is better - who cares about strings when you learn these things.

If you want to specialize, learn Rust in and out. :D