[_8j50]

I haven't seen much pumping for Rust. It is a great language but I see Go and even Ada and Ocaml are mentioned a lot (relative to actual adaption) here. There are lots more esoteric languages getting hyped on HN. There was even a popular post about .NET the other day.

[ksec]

>Go and even Ada and Ocaml are mentioned a lot (relative to actual adaption) here.

That is just not true. Go submissions rarely reach front page. Ocaml has one in months if not years. Go is used a lot, while OCaml appears in comments mostly for programming language comparison purposes along with Haskell and Erlang. C# and Dot Net ecosystem is fifth most popular language on Tiobe and Stack Overflow. Ada mostly get brought up in the context of Pascal and sometimes in the context of Rust competitor. I would even put it to 1:100 appearance compare to rust and people are already put off by it.

There are may be one or two submission about Zig every one or two months that made it to front page and some are already "asking" why are there so many zig submission on HN.

[_8j50]

Maybe I am just biased and notice those.

[skywal_l]

But .NET is still way more popular (by popular I mean used) than Ocaml, Haskell or even Rust no? (I could be completely wrong, just my impression).

[detaro]

But not necessarily by HNs audience, and it's perceived as "old and boring" and thus doesn't get as much attention, even if large changes happen (I notice this with C++, since that's what I primarily work with: There have been large changes in C++ over the past ~decade, but it takes a long time for people that have an established opinion based on older style to recognize that, a language thats obviously new sticks out more obviously)

There's a cycle to these things, e.g. a few years back "XYZ in Go" was a lot on HN, because that was the new cool thing people were curious about. Now probably more people use Go, but it's not as interesting anymore as something people don't really know yet. And thus projects written in it don't highlight it as often, so even if they are discussed its not as obvious. OCaml and Haskell also aren't new, but haven't reached the saturation of "many people know them", so if something about them pops up its still interesting to more people.

[hyperman1]

One problem with new C++ is mainly that old C++ comes along for the ride.

New C++ indeed is a lot better, but the chance that your codebase was created recently is quite low. You will have to deal with al the old C++ in there. The conflict between new and old C++ will cause some lavaflow architecture as a bonus.

Even if you've got a greenfield C++ project, you're not going it alone. If you're a team of 10, it's almost guaranteed at least 1 of them will be programming like it's 1999 with no intention to change. Code samples by your vendor will not be up to date. A quick google will deliver a working answer from the good old days.

It's like hydra. Every time you axe a block of old code, 5 new ones have sprouted up.