|
|
|
|
|
|
by alphazard
115 days ago
|
|
|
What no one wants to hear is rust is destined for the same fate. If you want to see the future of rust, look at C++.
Rust has a much better initial state, but the rules evolving the system (the governance model, the kinds of developers that work on it, etc.) are the same as C++ and so we should expect the same trajectory. Unless you have a system that says "no" a lot, and occasionally removes features, programming languages decay, and the game has been (historically, before LLMs) to pick a language that would be in the sweet spot for the time that you need to use it, while keeping your eye out for something else to switch to once it becomes sufficiently unusable. |
|
|
Dear lord that is not the case. The C++ standardization process is extremely different from Rust's specification process, and the resulting pathologies are extremely dissimilar. Hell, C is fairly close to C++ in terms of process, and yet it still has its own set of pathologies.
The C++ committee is dominated not by experts on compiler implementation, but by people looking to get their own proposals incorporated into the standard, and is structurally organized in such a way that it can be difficult for any group to feel empowered to actually reject a feature. It should be noted that in the most recent batch of C++ papers, there was effectively an implementers' revolt: https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2026/p39....
The Rust proposal process is much more ponderous, and when you take into account the lag between an accepted RFC and implementation and stabilization (and the fact that some accepted RFCs turn out to be unworkable and effectively get backed out without ever being stabilized), it's pretty clear that the actual development process is night-and-day different. For example, the Try trait in Rust still has yet to be stabilized, despite the RFC proposing it being introduced over nine years ago and a v2 RFC being accepted five years ago.