[rewmie]

> There are a litany of benefits to Rust that include, but are not limited to

Other than Cargo, none of the advantages you mentioned are actually advantages, and are just basic features that are shared by multiple programming languages for decades.

If it's hard to justify Rust's use, why insist it's a decent tech stack for this sort of applications in spite of all of the evidence to the contrary?

[Klonoar]

I thought I made it clear - but apparently I should have been far more blunt - that I don't particularly value going in to a comment chain regarding "justify Rust's use for $X". I say this to point out that you're trying to imply:

> If it's hard to justify Rust's use

I don't consider it hard, I'm just not spending time on it because it's not worth it to me. If I felt it was worth it, I could discuss language features or so on (error handling, functional programming idioms, etc). It's covered fine elsewhere. ;P

> Why insist it's a decent tech stack for this sort of applications in spite of all of the evidence to the contrary?

This entire thread is due to my not buying the "evidence" that it's hard.

Go write in whatever language you want. I want to write in Rust, and I want a functioning GUI framework and I think people are overthinking it. shrug

[rewmie]

Your empty claims hold no water. You stat you don't consider it hard to justify Rust's use, but you still failed to provide any suport, let alone a coherent argument, justifying it's use.

I get fanboys want to support their pet tech stack no matter what and in spite of all evidence, but hand waving over the problem doesn't lead to progress. It just pushes an irrational belief that helps no one, and just showcases a need to lose touch with reality.