One year since stable? It feels like five years for the level of maturity they have achieved.
Well, it has been around for about that long. The "one year" is since the stable release 1.0.
I meant since the stable release in fact.
One year of Rust
11–20 of 110 posts
Re: One year of Rust
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except the tooling, could be better. A language like Rust will benefit from a rich IDE a lot. But still the language is great.
I really wish that Jetbrains had a Rust IDE. I love their Go, and Erlang plugins for IntelliJ, Java with IntelliJ, and Clion with C. Without them, I don't think I could be anywhere as effective as I am. I tried to pickup Rust, but I was super frustrated by the code/compile/run cycle with the current plugin. But, hopefully more users will make that better.
Jetbrains Rust IDE would genuinely make Rust my go-to language for pretty much every task I can think of.
Re: One year of Rust
#13One year since stable? It feels like five years for the level of maturity they have achieved.
Rust has been in development for almost a decade at this point; but the language changed significantly many times before 1.0. It's been one year since the 1.0 release, which is the language we know today as "Rust". All those older languages are dead and gone now. I'm actually doing a talk about the ACM's Applicative conference in NYC this year talking about the history of Rust.
This is one thing that's a little annoying to me. I know if I develop a Rust app today I can't leave it alone or it will decay horribly.
Re: One year of Rust
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except the tooling, could be better. A language like Rust will benefit from a rich IDE a lot. But still the language is great.
I'd say the tooling is pretty great only with the exception of an IDE. Debugging, building, testing, packaging all seems pretty well handled.
packaging will work great if you don't rely on any unicorn library that will put their dylib/so files in some ugly path's that aren't standard. (FFI only) actually not the worst thing for most people, but linking against a paid library will mostly end up with setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH at some point.
Re: One year of Rust
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rust has been in development for almost a decade at this point; but the language changed significantly many times before 1.0. It's been one year since the 1.0 release, which is the language we know today as "Rust". All those older languages are dead and gone now. I'm actually doing a talk about the ACM's Applicative conference in NYC this year talking about the history of Rust.
This is one thing that's a little annoying to me. I know if I develop a Rust app today I can't leave it alone or it will decay horribly.
That should not be true. 1.0 meant that we stopped breaking things on a daily basis, if your code runs on stable today, it should run on stable tomorrow, modulo any soundness fixes (of which we have had two or three this year, which were all trivial to update).
If it is true, please file bugs. We do our best not to break people's stuff, going to pretty extreme lengths compared to many other ecosystems.
Re: One year of Rust
#16One year since stable? It feels like five years for the level of maturity they have achieved.
Rust has been in development for almost a decade at this point; but the language changed significantly many times before 1.0. It's been one year since the 1.0 release, which is the language we know today as "Rust". All those older languages are dead and gone now. I'm actually doing a talk about the ACM's Applicative conference in NYC this year talking about the history of Rust.
Will that talk be available online at some point?
Re: One year of Rust
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rust has been in development for almost a decade at this point; but the language changed significantly many times before 1.0. It's been one year since the 1.0 release, which is the language we know today as "Rust". All those older languages are dead and gone now. I'm actually doing a talk about the ACM's Applicative conference in NYC this year talking about the history of Rust.
This is one thing that's a little annoying to me. I know if I develop a Rust app today I can't leave it alone or it will decay horribly.
> This is one thing that's a little annoying to me. I know if I develop a Rust app today I can't leave it alone or it will decay horribly.
No, it won't. Rust has been stable since 1.0, as the article itself mentions.
Re: One year of Rust
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rust has been in development for almost a decade at this point; but the language changed significantly many times before 1.0. It's been one year since the 1.0 release, which is the language we know today as "Rust". All those older languages are dead and gone now. I'm actually doing a talk about the ACM's Applicative conference in NYC this year talking about the history of Rust.
This is one thing that's a little annoying to me. I know if I develop a Rust app today I can't leave it alone or it will decay horribly.
Good news for you: this is a complete misconception. Rust has been stable for a year. With a minor caveat for actual bugs in the language, your code will compile on all Rust 1.X compilers from now until the end of time. Upgrading Rust versions has been a breeze.
Re: One year of Rust
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rust has been in development for almost a decade at this point; but the language changed significantly many times before 1.0. It's been one year since the 1.0 release, which is the language we know today as "Rust". All those older languages are dead and gone now. I'm actually doing a talk about the ACM's Applicative conference in NYC this year talking about the history of Rust.
Will that talk be available online at some point?
I hope so. I gave it at FOSDEM in 2015, only intending to give it one time, and then they lost all of the video from the keynote track :( So I'm giving it again there to hopefully get it on the record.
Re: One year of Rust
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rust has been in development for almost a decade at this point; but the language changed significantly many times before 1.0. It's been one year since the 1.0 release, which is the language we know today as "Rust". All those older languages are dead and gone now. I'm actually doing a talk about the ACM's Applicative conference in NYC this year talking about the history of Rust.
This is one thing that's a little annoying to me. I know if I develop a Rust app today I can't leave it alone or it will decay horribly.
That's gotten much better since 1.0. Prior to 1.0, you needed to revise your Rust program about once a week so it would compile. Now the language has settled, but the libraries are still churning.
One of the big advantages of Go is that it comes with a coherent set of libraries from a single source (Google) that do most of the things you'd want to do on a server. Rust is more like Python; many people write libraries, many of which overlap and some of which work.