491–500 of 521 posts
A detail that strikes me as odd, and an explicit deviation from Rust, is to indent with only 2 spaces. Dart does the same, but its justification is the (excessive) amount of indenting going on. It's often a struggle to match indents visually.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't think comparing the current defacto standard low-level languages (C/C++) to Rust shines any light on the issue you raised? [1] C/C++ : 6.17% Rust : 0.29% This was addressed in one of the linked sources. What would you accept as evidence, then? 1: https://www.devjobsscanner.com/blog/top-8-most-demanded-lang...
I think looking only at the number of dev jobs leaves too many potential confounding factors to be useful. For instance, how many C/C++ jobs are actually companies who need those devs to move away from C/C++? What's the overlap? How much of the C/C++ share is maintaining legacy code vs starting new projects? Sure the data says something about it, can we draw any conclusions from it other than precisely the numbers yo…
And there's a ton of those job listings.
Github repos might be a better source of penetration and use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Can we not with this tired joke. . . . You shouldn't have confidence that it will be supported . . . It is not a joke. It is a reputation that Google has earned through its actions and inactions. As shown by https://killedbygoogle.com/ and numerous desperate posts for help [1][2][3] on this and other web sites, Google's "must launch a new shiny thing" promotion culture and abysmal customer service have eroded publ…
The only comparable thing to an open source programming language on that list is AngularJS, and I wouldn't say that was killed but superceded by Angular 2 (which is also a lot better).
Here is my attempt, since 2011:
Works nicely, unlike the Java Behemoth.
If you are like me and wondering "What makes carbon different from Rust or Zig? 1. The ability to interoperate with a wide variety of code, such as classes/structs and templates, not just free functions. 2. A willingness to expose the idioms of C++ into Carbon code, and the other way around, when necessary to maximize performance of the interoperability layer. 3. The use of wrappers and generic programming, including…
The syntax looks a lot like Rust, though. I'm surprised they made such a break when there explicit goal is to make migration from C++ as easy as possible. Also, Rust (from my biased point of view) is currently on its way to become the standard low-level language, so I'm not too confident that Rust-but-with-OO is enough of a selling point.
I'm interested in seeing how things are handled with the Linux kernel's rust support, if it ever becomes more than a proof of concept. That will be a good viability test.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In fact there is plenty that can be expressed only in C++. A person making effective use of the power of the language finds anything else a huge step down. Anyone not having fun when coding C++ is doing it wrong.
Example of some well-written code that expresses things that can only be expressed in C++?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only comparable thing to an open source programming language on that list is AngularJS, and I wouldn't say that was killed but superceded by Angular 2 (which is also a lot better).
there was GWT.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except I didn't say " most languages are peaked at 10 years"; I said virtually all languages reached or neared the ballpark of their peak at age 10, from the most to the least successful ones, and those include C, C++, and D. I think Python might be the only counterexample. So it's always possible that some other language would be another exception, but there's nothing today to indicate that Rust is gearing to be suc…
Yes, Python is the only outlier. Rust very much could still fizzle. If it does, it will be because it failed to change to be adoptable by more users. All existing users are tolerant of niche qualities. If it succeeds, the programmers who already know it will constitute less than 2% of the total, and the 98% will have picked it up after it changed to be more readily taken up. If it fizzles, current users will always b…
For one, we're long since in an era of diminishing returns — new languages have a smaller ROI compared to incumbents than the incumbents had to the languages they replaced — while the cost of a switch is the same if not higher (because codebases are larger). So switching to a new language is just not as profitable today as it was twenty years ago.
For another, the market is more fragmented today than it was, say, 15 years ago. For example, while Java is not the only game in town on the server as it was in, say, 2003-2006, no other single language shows any signs of becoming as dominant as that either. Some use Python for server-side applications, some use JS, some use C#, some use Kotlin, and some use Go. There is no single language that people flock to and so Java is still the dominant server-side language (although for a while PHP seemed like it could be it). So even if Rust does gain actual traction, it's very unlikely to become the standard low-level language. Some may use Rust, some may use Zig, some will use C++, some will use C, and maybe some may use Carbon. The only new language around that seems capable of reaching a popularity similar to ~25 year-old languages is TypeScript.
I also think Rust has a fundamental problem specific to it, and that is that it's a complex, rich, language. Rich/complex languages have never been super-popular, and while C++ is arguably more-or-less as complex as Rust, it wasn't when it gained its market share (only to lose much of it shortly after).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, Python is the only outlier. Rust very much could still fizzle. If it does, it will be because it failed to change to be adoptable by more users. All existing users are tolerant of niche qualities. If it succeeds, the programmers who already know it will constitute less than 2% of the total, and the 98% will have picked it up after it changed to be more readily taken up. If it fizzles, current users will always b…
I think all new languages have some challenges that would make it very hard for them to become as popular as older languages (none of the top five languages is under twenty years old). For one, we're long since in an era of diminishing returns — new languages have a smaller ROI compared to incumbents than the incumbents had to the languages they replaced — while the cost of a switch is the same if not higher (because…
Language complexity is a poor measure. Better is the complexity of using a language to achieve an aim. C and Pascal are pretty simple as languages, but they make it substantially more complex to complete a task, because they lack the expressive power needed to help any.
C++11 is substantially more complex than C++98, but much simpler to program with. Rust is both simpler than C++ (at surface level, because it leaves behind cruft C++ cannot) but more complex because it makes greater cognitive demands (to satisfy the borrow checker) and also because it lacks powerful features C++ offers. C++ is better able than Rust to package semantics in a library and deliver that to users on command. But Rust is way, way better in that way than C.