| ▲ | TylerE 16 hours ago |
| I could argue that at least 90% of software does t need a very low level language. |
|
| ▲ | goku12 14 hours ago | parent [-] |
| That 90% is moot if you're trying to replace C++. Rust is a better fit than Go. Granted that Go iteration times are better. But Rust is by no means just a low level language. The abstractions in Rust are fantastic. They feel very ergonomic and high level. I think the real problem with Rust is that many people can't come to terms with the borrow checker. It's whole another skill set to know what the BC is trying to achieve, how to solve BC errors and the alternatives available when you can't. Once you know that though, Rust feels very productive - even extremely helpful in resolving problems in advance. |
| |
| ▲ | TylerE 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | Believe it or not it’s possible, even desirable, to use an appropriate solution to the problem at hand, rather than treating everything as a nail just because you’re find if your hammer. | | |
| ▲ | goku12 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | That argument is selectively and rather condescendingly applied to Rust far too often. In this particular context (both the parent comment and the article), that criticism should apply more to Go than to Rust. Besides, I don't understand the argument of asking everyone to learn a dozen different languages for an 'appropriate solution at hand' when the differences between them don't justify such effort. I don't dislike Go. But it's disingenuous to argue that Rust shouldn't be used where Go can be. | | |
| ▲ | arccy 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | perhaps it's applied to rust more often because rust evangelists are... louder. |
|
|
|
