it feels like there’s a smaller language hiding in Rust that’s half as powerful at the edges but 10-50x easier to read, write, and maintain
13
18
123
Conversation
Comparing a language using garbage collection to one tackling the hard problem of providing memory safety without it doesn't make much sense. Rust is a low-level systems programming language while Go is in a different niche. If you don't need a low-level language, don't use Rust.
2
1
5
I agree with everything you said except "don't use rust" part.
1
"If you don't need a low-level language, don't use Rust." is far different than saying "don't use Rust". If you need a low-level language, use Rust. If you don't, use a high-level language offering more productivity, less friction and quicker development turnaround times.
Using the correct tool for the job is one of the most important skills for a programmer. There is no need to have one true language that's best for every possible usage. Different programming languages are designed around different compromises based on targeting different niches.
1
there are plenty of programmers who don't actually need a low-level programming language who are choosing rust for its other very good properties and i don't know how productive it is to say that they're wrong (1/2)
2
Show replies
I did not misinterpret your sentence, I just shorten mine. Anyway, Rust can be used in more places than just low-level.
1
It can be used, but that doesn't make it a good fit for it with productivity comparable to a high-level language with garbage collection and without many of the concerns fundamental to the design space of Rust is aimed at. It does Rust a disservice to have it presented as that.
1
Show replies