[fullspectrumdev]

If it speeds up a build/CI pipeline it’s a worthwhile investment for a lot of folks

[RamblingCTO]

You can get a big speedbump with go without introducing the overhead of object lifecycle management.

[xnorswap]

Your sentence is confusing; a speedbump is designed to slow you down.

[RamblingCTO]

Haha, you're right. I meant speed bump. As a German I'm used to chaining words together.

[xnorswap]

It wasn't the chaining that was an issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_bump .

Perhaps "speed boost" would be a better alternative for your intended meaning.

[jamincan]

Interestingly "bump in speed" would be fine, but "speed bump", means the exact opposite.

[jasonjmcghee]

It isn’t in this context. “got a speed bump” vs “hit a speed bump”

[crabmusket]

Then rewrite Prettier in Go and I'm sure people will use it :)

[RamblingCTO]

Not slightly interested. My point is: we have tools that fit the problem better instead of supporting the hype train of rust.

[jamincan]

What do you suggest would be better? Command-line tools, parsing and parallelism are all things that Rust excels at.

[RamblingCTO]

Why on earth would you need object lifecycle mem management for these things? These are points where Go excels as well. Rust is meant as a systems language, I'd love to have it as a general purpose lang as well, but it's not imho.

[crabmusket]

So you think Rust is a bad choice because... the programmers will need to deal with the borrow checker? I think it's been demonstrated that programmers are fine with that.