|
|
|
|
|
by pjmlp
53 days ago
|
|
I certainly do, which is why outside some hobby coding to try out new language features, as means to understand where Rust stands, I don't have any special use case where I would pick Rust instead of one of those languages. For me its ideal use case, are places where any form of automated resource management is either not technically possible, or it is a waste of time trying to change mindsets. |
|
Rust isn't a language for a special case, Rust is universal. Those other languages are for special cases, you're simply a special case developer.
Picking a different language for each special case is the primary problem Rust solves, it's the problem of being a jack of all trades and a master of none.
>> If anything all those attempts prove that for many scenarios, it is better having automated resource management + (affine, linear, dependent, effects) than the pure affine types approach taken by Rust.
Can you write the proof down for us please? I'm curious, how do you prove that "for many scenarios" A+B is better than B+A?
The OP is about doing A in safe Rust, which isn't even an option for many of those other languages which are, at the very least, bootstrapped from unsafe code.