| This author has a habit (in this posts and prior posts) of the content of the paragraphs not connecting the dots for the claims made in the headings. > Rust is (over)hyped Whether it is or isn't, the content of the following paragraph does not justify the heading. It cites the StackOverflow surveys that says people like Rust and then cites adoption, but doesn't connect these points. It's possible for something to be hyped but not adopted much if it's new-ish. The heading itself is also unclear. Is the author saying "overhyped" or "hyped"? Pick one. Additionally, the author doesn't connect this heading to the overall article. They should explain why something being (over)hyped means you should not pick it. > Rust projects decay The rest of the paragraph talks about the Rust release cycle but doesn't connect the dots to why this causes Rust projects to decay. Any Rust code written after the v1.0 release is guaranteed to compile forever. If you upgrade your compiler by 30 versions your code will still compile. A new release of Rust doesn't mean you have to drop everything you're doing and upgrade. If you want to upgrade once per year, you can do that. The same points were raised on the author's previous article ("Programming Languages are Platforms") which was another article that raises points in the headings that are not described further in the paragraphs. > Rust is still beta (despite the 1.0) This paragraph says "related to the point above" but it's not related. In this section they say that Rust is missing features (it is) and in the previous section they were implying that it's bad that Rust is adding features. This heading is also obviously intentionally inflammatory. If Rust not having async Traits makes it "beta", would the author have considered Go to be "beta" for 10+ years when it didn't have generics. Generics as a feature are *much* more integrated with fundamental parts of the language and cause ecosystem churn & split. See also Java and C#. (For the record, I wouldn't consider either of those situations to be "beta" and think the suggestion is preposterous) > The standard library is anemic Meh, "anemic" is a pretty inflammatory word and I wouldn't go that far. It's intentionally bare bones to avoid bad design decisions that can't be removed in the future and so far that's been pretty successful. Does the Go standard library even have map/filter yet? It seems like this author's idea of a non-anemic standard library is that it has a builtin HTTP server. They also suggest in other articles that Rust needs to have a builtin templating language as well. They suggest that not having this builtin leads to bugs, as if a standard library can't have bugs as well? The link between these points is tenuous at best. > async is hard These paragraphs are pretty good. ___ All in all, it's a provacatively written article that's sure to generate discussion, and especially discussion unrelated to the article itself, but unfortunately there's little to no logical flow in the points that it's trying to make. |