What are the standards for determining that?

The most obvious benefit Rust can give them is being safe from memory leaks. This is hardly controversial: it has been a Zig design choice that memory leaks are the developer/user's responsibility. They have already demonstrated to have fixed several of those [0].

Marketing-wise, it has been an obvious success. Dunno if that matters.

[0] https://bun.com/blog/bun-in-rust

▲

rcxdude 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Rust also doesn't prevent memory leaks: you can create memory leaks through reference cycles just fine in rust.

▲

vga1 3 days ago | parent [-]

Who cares?

▲

zbentley 3 days ago | parent [-]

People who don’t want to run out of memory?

▲

vga1 3 days ago | parent [-]

Are the Rust programmers who suffered from memory leaks through reference cycles in the room with you right now?

	▲	zbentley 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yes? I’ve made that mistake, it’s not particularly hard to do. Stash an Arc in something that lives too long, or forget to clear its inner data structure when you should, and you have a leak. That’s not like … a design flaw or something, just a common class of error Rust can’t save you from.

▲

andsoitis 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> What are the standards for determining that?

Seems pretty simple to me: if the software works, the port has been successful.

If this is unsatisfactory, another way to think about the question is to ask "what would make you conclude it has failed?" That requires a sharp choice.

▲

owebmaster 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Marketing-wise, it has been an obvious success. Dunno if that matters.

What's interesting tho it's that it can go from apparent marketing success to a big failure as the release keeps getting postponed.

▲

vga1 3 days ago | parent [-]

Seems like they just released 1.4 though.

	▲	owebmaster 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Great! It's finally Monday.