[ttfkam]

You really think things will improve by essentially wrapping entire Rust programs in a huge unsafe block?

Rust isn't targeting the NodeJS crowd at large. It is targeting the systems programming and C++ crowd. And spoken by someone who still has his C++98 hardcover by Stroustrup on his shelf, the alternatives in that space are not one iota easier. The fact that C++ does not mandate the use of smart pointers and requires external tools like Valgrind to find memory access bugs is the problem, not a compiler that tells you where you're wrong.

Security is a pain, but it's not a bug. If you want easier, go for a garbage-collected language—though they rarely help with multithreading faults.

Rust ain't fizzling. It's exactly where it needs to be, solving the kinds of problems it was designed for. There is no need for any one language to solve any and every kind of problem. Different tools for different tasks.

[ncmncm]

You very evidently did not read what I wrote.

And, if you imagine Rust has already succeeded, or that its future is assured, you have not been paying attention elsewhere, either. Failure is absolutely the norm for programming languages.

[ttfkam]

Rust is powering core, critical infrastructure at AWS like Lambda and Fargate through Firecracker. https://firecracker-microvm.github.io/

The Linux kernel is actively looking at submissions in a language other than C for the first time in 30 years. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/03/linus-torvalds-weigh...

It is a primary language source for WebAssembly.

That is already MUCH further than either D or Dart ever got in their respective spheres.

Folks (including many with a lot of money) are noticing that Rust instead of C or C++ means 70% fewer CVEs leading to security breaches. https://msrc-blog.microsoft.com/2019/07/22/why-rust-for-safe...

I think there's a place for a lot of players: TypeScript, Python, Go, etc.

Rust however is not just an interesting side step like most languages that cannot point to real, measurable gains. When there are a limited number of languages that can fill a niche (systems, highest performance, limits on memory consumption), one of them has demonstrable improvements in ergonomics, stability, and security, and it has funding from an array of deep pockets, it would be a fool's errand to discount it even if it has a steeper learning curve than Python.

[ncmncm]

Your choice to compare Rust to D and Dart reveals all.

If you imagine that Amazon could not rewrite firecracker in a week, you are not paying attention. If you imagine that the Linux kernel has any Rust code in it, you are not paying attention.

Python, JavaScript, Java, C++, C, and Fortran got miracles. Myriad others did not. Miracles are not awarded for merit, but are reliably denied for failure to act to seize them. (C++ very nearly lost its, before 2011.) Rust has not got one. Rust still, just barely conceivably, could find one. Failing to take steps in that direction is a binding choice.

[ttfkam]

Where was Python in 2002 when it was only 11 years old?

Not every language can piggyback on the first scriptable web browsers or on IBM mainframes.

I see Rust's miracle as industry adoption in cloud infrastructure even though every software engineer in that sphere already has (typically decades of) experience in C and/or C++.

Its miracle is that after all these apps were (re)written, it was not followed by the typical tidal wave (or even a steady stream) of severe CVEs that have always accompanied systems-level languages.

Most folks don't need Rust, will probably never need Rust. That's okay. A huge proportion of developers never need C, C++, or any of the myriad assembly languages.

But folks in that sphere know how fraught the systems-level languages are both from a security perspective and a packaging perspective (where's the cargo equivalent in C++ in 2022?). They are looking at their colleagues and watching the list of CVEs.

Their choices: • Zig: better than C, simpler than Rust, but very immature, and not as memory safe or thread safe as Rust • Ada: established, used by DoD, not as memory safe or thread safe as Rust (see: severe CVE causes) • Go: much shallower learning curve than Rust, but garbage collector makes it unsuitable for systems-level. Much less flexible than Rust. • Fortran: no intrinsic standard support for Unicode-aware I/O, memory safety is lower than Rust. Fortran is a muscle car with great straight line performance for scientific processing but has always struggled with general app space due to its design. • Nim: interesting alternative to C, but nowhere near mature or stable enough for general deployment in the real world. • C: dead simple with plenty of foot guns. In fairness, C taught us where a lot of the foot guns were in programming. 50+ years later, it's obvious from the CVEs that humans need some guardrails. • C++: More complex than Rust, a back history that preclude solving its worst design issues, and coupled with subtle firearms that blow your whole leg off. No standard packaging or module repositories available. Severe CVEs galore. Has spawned entire swaths of new languages just to avoid using it. (See: Java)

Rust is arguably the first popular language outside the DoD that can reliably take jobs from C++ with tremendously and measurably better reliability without compromise on resource usage.

There's a reason Linus Torvalds and the other core kernel developers never wanted C++ anywhere near the Linux kernel but are cautiously optimistic about and open to Rust development in that space.

It's not about hype; it's about the necessity of reducing the security-related blast radius even at the lowest levels of hardware and the embedded space. Everything above that level is just gravy.

I would NEVER consider writing web server software or cloud functions in C or C++ in 2022. I would consider it irresponsible. I'd write them in Rust in a heartbeat though if performance demanded it. Many others feel the same way.

All together, that's what I see as Rust's miracle.

[ncmncm]

Pretending Rust has already got a miracle will suffice to deny it one. The window does not open long, or wide. Not choosing is a choice.