Earlier quoted context omitted.
A little over 18 months ago, 1.0 was released. We've had very strong compatibility guarantees since then.
While that is true, in Go, almost no libraries are written to use non-stable features. This is not the case in Rust.
Rust is mostly safety
71–80 of 474 posts
Re: Rust is mostly safety
#72Nice to see these languages on Rust's team radar, specially Sather.
Just shows how you guys have researched prior work, congratulations.
Re: Rust is mostly safety
#73Re: Rust is mostly safety
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right. Go and Rust have completely different development models, so that wouldn't make any sense. To recap, in Rust, to make additions to the language: 1. Small additions mean make a PR. 2. Big additions mean make an RFC, then a PR if accepted. 3. These PRs go behind a feature flag that lets us track the feature, and only allows it on nightly. 4. People who desire the new feature try it out. (This is what you refer t…
> Most people use stable Rust. However, many popular or important libraries like Serde or Rocket require the use of nightly. I recall the article a very short while ago on the front page that noted how Rust has effectively diverged into two languages, stable and nightly.
Rocket just came out; I think it's an extremely interesting library, but https://crates.io/crates/rocket shows that it's been downloaded 618 times. It hasn't exactly taken the world by storm yet. I think it shows great potential though! But it's not a good case of showing that the Rust ecosystem largely depends on nightly.
The article you refer to contained a number of factual errors.
Re: Rust is mostly safety
#75The original Rust author make great points about safety. I think this new thrust on marketing emerges from Rust Roadmap 2017 which puts Rust usage in industry as one of the major goal. Currently Rust is about Go's age but nowhere close in usage. As the roadmap says "Production use measures our design success; it's the ultimate reality check." I agree with that.
> Currently Rust is about Go's age but nowhere close in usage. Citation? I see a lot of people talking about both, but not very many public projects in either. Rust at least has a "killer app" on the way in the form of Servo, whereas I haven't heard of any user-facing programs in Go.
Re: Rust is mostly safety
#76> countless lives lost I have no doubt that people have had their lives ruined, or even died, as the result of flaws in system programming, but is anyone actually tracking this? Is it "countless?"
"What have you done? That vase was priceless!"
"Oh good, I was afraid it was expensive."
Re: Rust is mostly safety
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
While that is true, in Go, almost no libraries are written to use non-stable features. This is not the case in Rust.
There are really only two popular Rust libraries that use unstable features: 1. serde, the best serialization/deserialization library. This works on stable now using the `serge_codegen` crate and a custom `build.rs` script. This will Just Work on stable with no extra setup once Macros 1.1 lands, theoretically in about 5 weeks. But I'm using it on stable now in a half-dozen projects, thanks to a `build.rs` script. 2.…
Re: Rust is mostly safety
#78> Modula-3, Eiffel, Sather Nice to see these languages on Rust's team radar, specially Sather. Just shows how you guys have researched prior work, congratulations.
Re: Rust is mostly safety
#79I completely agree. This is what I wrote on Reddit in response to Klabnik's post: Rust can make such an important contribution to such an important slice of the software world, that I really fear that trying to make a better pitch and get as many adopters as quickly as possible might create a community that would pull Rust in directions that would make it less useful, not more. Current C/C++ developers really do need…
Re: Rust is mostly safety
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
While that is true, in Go, almost no libraries are written to use non-stable features. This is not the case in Rust.
Right. Go and Rust have completely different development models, so that wouldn't make any sense. To recap, in Rust, to make additions to the language: 1. Small additions mean make a PR. 2. Big additions mean make an RFC, then a PR if accepted. 3. These PRs go behind a feature flag that lets us track the feature, and only allows it on nightly. 4. People who desire the new feature try it out. (This is what you refer t…