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.
2
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.
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
this twet feels like a reasonable prediction, namely that a [far] future variant of rust that chops off some low-level power to achieve some higher-level "productivity" or "expressiveness" or "simplicity" or whatever will probably take off (2/2)
Quote Tweet
Replying to @peterbourgon
I feel this. I think one day we will look back and see Rust as root of a family of languages, with at least one besides Rust really taking off.
1
1
Show replies