[commandersaki]

The reason they didn't do Rust is because it was faster and more reliable to port the compiler and Go was a strong match particularly because of struct layout, types, concurrency, etc. but most importantly because it was native code with automatic garbage collection which Rust simply doesn't have. There's a video of Anders talking specifically about this.

[whattidywhat]

The automatic gc doesn't seem like an actual deal breaker though. They probably just didn't want to redesign a bunch of data types that assumed one existed.

I'm not arguing saying they made a bad call. I think what they did was smart with the options in front of them and whatever budget they have. The world isn't good for idealism, but it ideally could have been written in rust in my opinion.

[commandersaki]

> it ideally could have been written in rust in my opinion

What exactly would that buy and would the outcome matter much?

In my opinion: pragmatism > idealism.

[Imustaskforhelp]

exactly , it sounds as if he is entitled to rust software.

Golang is generally very fast and simple as well , the only problem is of memory allocation / garbage collector overhead but the benefits outweigh the loss.

[whattidywhat]

I do like rust and like I said, ideally in my opinion. I also did say choosing go was more pragmatic. We are on the same page believe it or not.

[zveyaeyv3sfye]

> They probably just didn't want to redesign a bunch of data types that assumed one existed.

Dude, just read the article being discussed, this is addressed so you can just stop making shit up.

The audacity of people like you to just keep adding speculations upon speculations on a subject without even bothering to learn what is being discussed.

[whattidywhat]

Yes they said there were issues with cyclic data structures. Not really speculating just wrote it funny. I get why they chose what they did and even said I agree with it.