| Some points resonate with me: > People don't want "to have to play Chess against the compiler" Things that are easy to express in other languages become very hard in Rust due to the languages constraints on ownership, async... > Rust has arrived at the complexity of Haskell and C++, each year requiring more knowledge to keep up with the latest and greatest. It's indeed hard to keep up. > Async is highly problematic. Yes, more complexity, more fragmentation and feel like another language. But one point feels unfair: > the excellent tooling and dev team for Rust [..] pulls the wool over people’s eyes and convinces them that this is a good language that is simple and worth investing in. What? No. The main appeal was the safety. It's still a distinctive feature of Rust.
To almost eliminate a whole class of safety issues. It has been proven by several lengthy reports such as https://security.googleblog.com/2024/09/eliminating-memory-s.... They are many projects for which the reliability and efficiency are worth the trouble. |