“I’m not going to use Rust because I don’t like it” seems like what you’re saying, which is totally fine. Plenty of people, myself included, manage to write and enjoy writing general application code in Rust. You’re allowed to not get it, just like I’m allowed to dislike writing C++.

▲

germandiago 2 hours ago | parent [-]

No. That is not what I am saying. I am saying there are contexts where you do not get value out of it and you can potentially decrease your productivity because it is more rigid. You have examples above if you want to read through.

In no way I am saying it is useless. I just see niche uses for it compared to alternatives.

	▲	mplanchard an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I read most of your comment as phrasing the things that make rust unique as being additional burdens relative to what you would prefer, which is fair, but often they are what I appreciate about the language. Explicit result types are a great example. Rigidity is a trade off: it can make initial development slower but refactors significantly easier, just as an example. I don’t think any of your examples show it to be niche. It operates well in most of the space where C++ is a good option, and a bit beyond that (embedded, firmware, but also higher level things where you want performance but don’t want to worry about memory safety).