[davedx]

I dunno man. I've done C, C++, JavaScript and TypeScript professionally for significant chunks of my career, and the trend that I've observed has overwhelmingly been towards stricter compilers. For example in the front-end world, TypeScript has absolutely exploded in adoption. Everyone could be still using JavaScript, but companies from startups to huge corporates have explicitly decided they want compile type safety -- often in "only" front-end code.

I suspect that the adoption of Rust as a system language is going slower because that's just the natural pace of embedded/systems development, not because of anything intrinsic to Rust. There are now 30k+ lines of Rust code [1] in the Linux kernel. C++ can't claim that.

[1] https://www.phoronix.com/news/Rust-v6-For-Linux-Kernel

[benreesman]

Oh I think we probably see largely eye-to-eye. My weapon of choice when there are no other constraints is Haskell, and one reason I really like Rust is that I can get a lot of the Haskell features I like in a highly-performant setting. Most of the C++ I maintain these days is in whole or in part generated by Haskell. And if I have to write something fast by hand and it doesn't need to link to stuff I need, I reach for Rust generally.

I was also unaware that Rust has such significant penetration in the Linux kernel, and that's a place where I can see it really shining.

My first comment in this thread was something to the effect that Rust has tons of great stuff to offer, and that the memory safety argument is actually weaker than people think and probably not the only thing people should talk about.

The resulting gang-tackle is just one more data point that the community is still too small and evangelical for me to want to get involved past my proprietary Rust stuff.

[davedx]

Ha, Rust community is very energetic, but IMHO they largely put that energy to good use!

I’m using it for a new project and honestly I’m using it more for the modern tooling and easy C interop than the safety features, but I’m a fan overall. Think it’s a really good language.

[unsafecast]

> Most of the C++ I maintain these days is in whole or in part generated by Haskell

Can you expand on that? I'm currently researching something similar but lower level & lisp instead of Haskell. It would help to see some existing examples to figure out if it's worth it or not.

[benreesman]

Ideally we'll just be able to open source it soon!

Basically we have a nice Haskell DSL for generating arbitrary C++, and we deal with lots of code you wouldn't want to write by hand (big nested switch statements and other kinds of state-machine logic, choices about loop unrolling, lots of template overloads, SIMD intrinsics that require immediate values, etc. etc.) so we write Haskell that generates C++ and feeds it to e.g. `clang`.

Some of this is directly in Haskell, and some of it is little compilers mostly done using Megaparsec. It's a really nice approach where it fits!

[unsafecast]

Sounds great, that's what I was imagining too. Is there a way I can find it when/if you open the source?

[benreesman]

Drop me a line at [e-mail] and I'll let you know when we can open-source some of it.

None of it is really all that magical btw, so you should take a whack at it yourself!

One thing that wouldn't have occurred to me that one of the Haskell geniuses I work with identified to use is the notion of a "free"/"operational" monad: https://apfelmus.nfshost.com/articles/operational-monad.html.

[unsafecast]

Thanks a lot.

> None of it is really all that magical btw, so you should take a whack at it yourself!

Of course! It's always good to see how other people approach it though.