"Rust is incapable of performing as good as C or C++"; debunked, Rust currently is at least as fast as both. "Rust has unsafe, therefor it is unsafe, like C"; debunked, Rust has shown judicious use of unsafe. "Rust changes too much"; debunked, since 1.0, everything still works.
-
Show this thread
-
Are there any current and relevant criticisms of Rust?
8 replies 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @benj_fry
Type system has poor expressivity, poor module system, terrible build performance, `unsafe` semantics are so nuanced as to be worse than C/C++ (people think they understand them but don’t), unsound language features get added and have to be fixed after release,
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @BRIAN_____ @benj_fry
Soundness bugs in the implementation aren’t given appropriate priority in fixing. The community structure (unintentionally) kills commercial financial incentives to improve tooling and libraries (anti-closed-source, anti-commerce mindset). I still think it’s pretty OK!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BRIAN_____
It's not exactly anti-closed. It's just that publishing crates on http://crates.io must be open, which seems reasonable. If you want closed source and want to distribute your libraries, you just shouldn't use the public repository, right?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
I think it's more how http://crates.io is used. Crater, for example, is often used to evaluate the ramifications of non-breaking-but-technically-breaking changes.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.