> If it's such a great language, when will we see a useful program written in it?

I think it should have been simple enough to find examples, though I suppose there might be some dependence on what you mean by "useful".

For standalone stuff, some examples might be Ripgrep, ruff, uv, Alacritty, and Polars. Rust is also used internally by some major companies, such as Amazon, Dropbox, Mozilla, Microsoft, Google, Volvo, Discord, and CloudFlare.

▲

babaceca 3 days ago | parent [-]

> there might be some dependence on what you mean by "useful".

I should've been clearer about that, but what I mean by that is pretty much what a normal non-technical person would consider an useful piece of software - Photoshop, Figma, Excel, Chrome, Windows, Android, Blender, AutoCAD, Unreal Engine, any Office Suite...

Since this is a technical forum I think we'd both easily agree on a bunch of very technically impressive software that the average person hasn't heard of - ffmpeg, qemu, LLVM, Linux, Postgres, V8, etc.

It would be a stretch to put any of the tool on either of those lists. Given the popularity of Rust, and that it's now over 10 years old, I'd expect at least one major program that can serve as an example of "here's this very useful, complex software package, as proof that our methodology works and you can do cool things this way."

	▲	aw1621107 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> but what I mean by that is pretty much what a normal non-technical person would consider an useful piece of software That seems like an... interesting... definition of "useful" to me. Why that definition? > Photoshop, Figma, Excel, Chrome, Windows, Android, Blender, AutoCAD, Unreal Engine, any Office Suite... To be fair, there is Rust in Windows and Android, and IIRC there's movement towards using it in Chrome as well. > It would be a stretch to put any of the tool on either of those lists. OK, but your second list has a different set of qualifications than the first. You originally just asked for "useful" programs, and that's what you asked for in the original comment I responded to. Now it's "very technically impressive". So which do you want? I feel like it's probably not a bad idea to ask exactly what you mean by "technically impressive" as well, since I think it's hard to argue that ripgrep and polars don't at least have technically impressive parts in them. > Given the popularity of Rust, and that it's now over 10 years old, I'd expect at least one major program that can serve as an example of "here's this very useful, complex software package, as proof that our methodology works and you can do cool things this way." That seems like a bit of a questionable metric to me. Given that Rust was explicitly designed and intended to be incrementally adoptable in existing codebases, it doesn't make sense to me to solely look for standalone programs since incremental adoption is very much part of "our methodology". This also sort of ties into your expectation in the first place - I'm not sure I'd expect the same given Rust's design and niche, as well as the general software landscape now vs. when C/C++ were a similar age.
	▲	burntsushi 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Classic example of moving the goalposts. You'll keep doing it no matter what examples people give you.