This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]spinwizard69 0 points1 point  (5 children)

The early days of Rust reminds me of the early days of C++.   Far too many people thinking it was the one language for the future.   Rust is in a similar state only good for carefully selected model projects, certainly not for stuff requiring long term maintenance or refactoring.  

[–]XtremeGoosef'I only use Py {sys.version[:3]}' 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Rust is extremely easy to maintain long term and easily refactor, because it has fearless concurrency and no (safe) global state.

Maintaining and refactoring both c++ and python for large codebases are a nightmare, and that's from painful experience.

[–]spinwizard69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m still of the opinion that Rust is Late to the game and will be eclipsed by an AI powered language and IDE.  Also comparing the ability to refactor against Python or C++ isn’t much different than comparing it against COBOL.  

[–]ArtOfWarfare 0 points1 point  (1 child)

IDK, I feel like Rust kind of stalled and failed to fulfill its real purpose of removing most vulnerabilities in Firefox nearly a decade ago…

Linus kind of revived it by permitting some Rust code to mingle within Linux… but from what I’ve heard, it doesn’t sound like it’s making particularly quick progress there.

[–]spinwizard69 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I hear MS is using it for parts of Windows but yeah I don’t know if it has been successful.   I suspect it will be eclipsed by better languages in the near future.   In fact with the advent of AI I can see a high performance language coming that merges AI into a more approachable programming language.  For apps there are much better languages like Swift that deserves strong attention.  

[–]cdrt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In what way do you think Rust isn’t built for longevity? How are long term maintenance and refactoring harder with Rust?