[brabel]

> Programs with Rust will always be rock-stable

How do you know that? Is there any data backing that up?

I've never seen any research showing that a programming language, no matter how strict (Haskell, Ada, Rust) actually improves the reliability of software, except for comparisons between memory-safe and non-memory-safe languages. It almost always goes down nearly entirely to development process and team skills/experience, showing anything else convincingly would be a huge breakthrough.

[manholio]

Well, here's my point of anecdata: despite Python being a very productive language and very easy to use, despite it existing for more than three decades and being perhaps the most massively learned language by aspiring programmers today, you hardly see any stand-alone application written in it. I can name not a single application that I use on a daily basis written in Python. It seems it's strongly confined to the web-server, where the environments are well controlled via containers, runtime bugs impact a single page load and fixes can be applied continuously. People don't ship Python standalone apps.

Based on the buggy and unstable Python desktop apps I have used, I have a strong suspicion that developing large applications in Python is strongly self-limiting after the initial sprint.

[UltraViolence]

I'm speaking from my own experience here. I've tested a couple of Rust programs which were developed in relatively short order yet were quite complex (a Minecraft type game being one) and there wasn't even the slightest hint of instability.

Some of my own Rust code is moderately complex but never showed any signs of instability during development. I often have crashes now and again with my C++ programs. Sure, I fix those afterwards but getting it flawless every time the first time is (for me at least) unheard of.