|
|
|
|
|
|
by uecker
167 days ago
|
|
|
I see a lot of activity of very specific parts of the industry promoting it. But also enthusiasts doing aggressive marketing are doing aggressive marketing - even if they do not have a budget. Whether it is an improvement is debatable. From my perspective, it is an improvement in some aspects and a significant step back in others. What is unacceptable though is the significant hate and pressure towards people who have other priorities and preferences, which is created by the "we must stamp out memory safety issues at all cost and Rust is the solution" narrative. |
|
|
Not really.
> it is an improvement in some aspects and a significant step back in others
Of course. Very few improvements are better in every way. There's always something you can find to like about the old solution. Horses are friendlier than cars. Records allow bigger artwork than CDs. Unlike DVDs (at first anyway) you can write to VHS. Unlike Typescript, Javascript doesn't need a compile step. FORTRAN77 fits nicely on punch cards.
That doesn't mean there's really any serious debate about them being improvements.
I will freely admit that Rust has only average compile time (though it's better than C++ at this point), high complexity, and async Rust is full of footguns. But I could come up with a much longer list of complaints for C.
> we must stamp out memory safety issues at all cost and Rust is the solution
Yeah I think memory safety is actually probably not the most important thing about Rust. Having a modern strong type system is arguably more significant. Memory safety is important too of course - even if you don't care about security memory safety issues are often plain hard to debug bugs.