Rust is neat, no doubt. And it's a huge improvement over C.... although that doesn't really count, because a cup of mouldy yogurt probably is better than C...
However, I don't build operating systems, embedded microcode or super-speed-critical things all that often. Duh.
If the need for that ever should occur, Rust will be my top candidate, with Go as a quasi-sort-of-system-language as a second candidate, if the usecase is applicable. Truth be told, contemporary quasi-system work is probably preferably done in Go rather than Rust.
By and large I think Rust has won over C. Nobody building a mission-critical low-level system would go back to C. They're most likely to chose Rust. And this is across the board, Microsoftsoft and other large megacorps inlcuded. So nothing to be concerned about.
You're kidding, right? C/C++ are going to be the kings of low level development for a long time to come. I wouldn't even call Rust a mature language yet.
If I had a dollar for every language enthusiast who proclaimed their language was going to topple C, I'd be a wealthy man.
I really like D. I feel like it hits the sweet spot of where Rust is targeting, but feels much better designed. That said, I've only toyed with either.
I'm curious to know why not. Rust has been around for about a decade, been developed by quite a few people and backed by a major organisation, been used by many more including writing substantial production software, is reasonably stable, etc. What are your criteria for a programming language to be mature, if not things like this?
... that C/C++ is going away. Anyone who knows development knows that these languages are here to stay, because "legacy". That's why we still have mission-critical stuff running on COBOL.
What I was saying was, that if you needed to build a fresh Windows or *nix, C would be quite low on your list of candidates. And for very good reasons too. C was a stopgap and it shows at every corner, and anyone denying that has delusions. C is basically Assembler 2.0. As far as Rust is concerned, let's not forget that Fir
Don't do kernel memory management in Rust. Don't do signal processing in C. Don't write a network server in C or Rust.
The lack of uptake may well be that very few apps at the right level are being started or rewritten.
People who could adapt C/C++ apps to be libraries that Rust could link to may not see the need. Remember, most C++ devs don't consider the problems that Rust solves to be problems. And depending on how much C++ devs avoid C patterns, they can largely avoid those problems in C
What good is a ticket to the good life, if you can't find the entrance?
Don't need it. (Score:1)
Rust is neat, no doubt. ... although that doesn't really count, because a cup of mouldy yogurt probably is better than C ...
And it's a huge improvement over C.
However, I don't build operating systems, embedded microcode or super-speed-critical things all that often. Duh.
If the need for that ever should occur, Rust will be my top candidate, with Go as a quasi-sort-of-system-language as a second candidate, if the usecase is applicable.
Truth be told, contemporary quasi-system work is probably preferably done in Go rather than Rust.
By and large I think Rust has won over C. Nobody building a mission-critical low-level system would go back to C. They're most likely to chose Rust. And this is across the board, Microsoftsoft and other large megacorps inlcuded. So nothing to be concerned about.
My 2 cents.
Re:Don't need it. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're kidding, right? C/C++ are going to be the kings of low level development for a long time to come. I wouldn't even call Rust a mature language yet.
If I had a dollar for every language enthusiast who proclaimed their language was going to topple C, I'd be a wealthy man.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Don't need it. (Score:2)
I really like D. I feel like it hits the sweet spot of where Rust is targeting, but feels much better designed. That said, I've only toyed with either.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't even call Rust a mature language yet.
I'm curious to know why not. Rust has been around for about a decade, been developed by quite a few people and backed by a major organisation, been used by many more including writing substantial production software, is reasonably stable, etc. What are your criteria for a programming language to be mature, if not things like this?
I'm not kidding. And I also did not say ... (Score:2)
... that C/C++ is going away. Anyone who knows development knows that these languages are here to stay, because "legacy". That's why we still have mission-critical stuff running on COBOL.
What I was saying was, that if you needed to build a fresh Windows or *nix, C would be quite low on your list of candidates. And for very good reasons too. C was a stopgap and it shows at every corner, and anyone denying that has delusions. C is basically Assembler 2.0. As far as Rust is concerned, let's not forget that Fir
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, mostly this.
Don't do kernel memory management in Rust. Don't do signal processing in C. Don't write a network server in C or Rust.
The lack of uptake may well be that very few apps at the right level are being started or rewritten.
People who could adapt C/C++ apps to be libraries that Rust could link to may not see the need. Remember, most C++ devs don't consider the problems that Rust solves to be problems. And depending on how much C++ devs avoid C patterns, they can largely avoid those problems in C