[seabrookmx]

Ditto. C# gets a bad rap due to its Windows-exclusive history, but it's now cross platform and has most of the features PL nerds are looking for. Strict nulls, pattern matching, a really mature and easy to use async ecosystem (it invented async/await), even a lot of the low level stuff is there (unsafe{} blocks ala rust and manual memory management where needed).

[simonask]

C# is nice, but it is nowhere near Rust in terms of safety or expressiveness. Thankfully they are finally adding discriminated unions (sum types) and other sorely missing features.

Unsafe in C# is much more dangerous than unsafe in Rust, precisely because it doesn’t actually color a function. It just allows its body to use pointers. This is why you have methods in the CLR called “DangerousFoo()”, and the compiler does nothing to prevent you from calling them.

[seabrookmx]

Rust also has a much steeper learning curve. I can onboard an average developer that's familiar with Typescript and have them be productive in C# in a week.

This one is more subjective, but I also think C# has a more mature and painless web stack.

I love both languages but for me they each fill a different role.

[simonask]

I think this just says that TypeScript and C# are more similar languages than either is to Rust, which I would agree with. Rust's learning curve is not steep at all if you're coming from C or C++.

C# also has a pretty steep learning curve if you have to care about the things where Rust excels, like correctness or maximum efficiency (which typically does not include web stuff). I would even say that Rust is the easiest language in which to approach that level of correctness and efficiency.