|
the whole article kinda reads like "i have a leak in the basement of my house in the pacific northwest. the solution? im moving to nevada" i dont dislike rust at all (infact, its rustler interop with elixir/erlang is great), but the article reframing a bunch of intentionl design choices (that i would broadly argue as good design choices) in golang as shortcomings is so weird (gc, generics, error handling, etc.). especially so when they're framed in such a way to make error-prone go seem inevitable, or are directly comparing well-written rust and poorly-written go. take, for example, the section on data races. the article broadly classifies rust as data race free and golang as full of synchronization issues. and this is true if you only actually care about data races (not race conditions broadly), assume all of your rust is safe rust, and none of your golang uses any of the available solutions (atomics, synchronization primitives, channels, etc.) to data races. yes, go leaves much of the behaviour up to the programmer. this isn't a downside. more egregiously, the article glosses over two of the biggest and, to me, most critical differences between the two language. first, go compiles FAST. i can write something and test it immediately, including stepping through the code. i dont need to context switch away from the task and can easily, and quickly, program fixes and changes and features. this is such a huge development gain that switching away from it would require an incredibly good reason. secondly, the package structure of rust offers a clear vector for supply-chain attacks. not that golang is perfect in that sense, but it has a ton of factors that reduce the likelihood, and if i'm being really picky about safety it's going to be a big consideration. |