[rocgf]

Rust fixes some issues that haven been present in most mainstream languages for decades, while maintaining performance.

There are many such languages or tools - Haskell (or other FP languages) or Erlang being among them - that have some vocal minorities that actually use them. The reality is that these language are highly unlikely to ever gain the traction they might arguable deserve.

[jstx1]

Are you putting Haskell and Rust in the same category when it comes to likely future adoption? They seem very different to me - Haskell being unlikely to get much more traction, and the opposite for Rust.

[lucasyvas]

Same take. I don't see Haskell / Erlang / Elixir and the like truly ever taking off. It's not because they aren't awesome (because they are) - it's because what they solve isn't as desperately needed as what Rust solves.

I don't feel like this aspect is debatable. Our systems are miserably insecure and unwilling to trade off performance to become more secure. Without Rust or something like it, there's no chance - that's the difference.

If those here are hoping for the hype to die down, they are going to be waiting a while.

[dimgl]

> it's because what they solve isn't as desperately needed as what Rust solves.

Undoubtedly, the issue of memory safety while remaining performant is a game-changer, but the word need is a bit strong here...

[danuker]

> but the word need is a bit strong here...

When 52% of curl's security vulnerabilities were due to it being written in C (mostly buffer overreads/overwrites), I say "need" is indeed adequate.

https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2021/03/09/half-of-curls-vulnera...