2017 Rust Roadmap

#1

Post by muizelaar » Sat, Oct 22, 2016, 12:57 AM UTC

2017 Rust Roadmap
github.com

Re: 2017 Rust Roadmap

#2

Post by dikaiosune » Sat, Oct 22, 2016, 1:09 AM UTC

It's important to note that this is an RFC which has been proposed, and there's likely to be a good deal of discussion and revision before it's merged/adopted as the official 2017 roadmap.

The conversation can be followed/joined/whatever here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1774

Re: 2017 Rust Roadmap

#3

Post by kalmar » Sat, Oct 22, 2016, 1:10 AM UTC

This is a better link, as it will include the discussion: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1774

Re: 2017 Rust Roadmap

#4

Post by gravypod » Sat, Oct 22, 2016, 1:15 AM UTC

> 1 in 19: lack of IDEs (1 in 4 non-users)

I expected that to be higher actually, but that's still the only reason I don't use the language. I've come to rely heavily on IDEs. Whether right or not it's a huge factor in my decision to wait for the language.

Re: 2017 Rust Roadmap

#5

Post by adamnemecek » Sat, Oct 22, 2016, 1:18 AM UTC

I would also suggest taking a page out of Apple's playbook and providing some official sample apps like https://developer.apple.com/library/content/navigation/#sect.... Reading the books is one thing, but seeing the patterns actually used is another. You don't need as many as Apple, only a couple really, but make sure they are well written and straddle a couple of use cases. And like go crazy with the idioms, I want to see the most idiomatic Rust code.

When learning a new platform, it's always frustrating having to hunt for good code. I actually find these similarly important as docs (maybe even more because I tend to reference good open source for much longer than docs).

Re: 2017 Rust Roadmap

#6

Post by fixxer » Sat, Oct 22, 2016, 1:20 AM UTC

Awesome to see the learning curve addressed with such high priority.

I like Rust and I'd like to use it more, but I generally lean on Go or C for writing anything that needs performance. I can't quite get past the awkward, fumbling stage with Rust. Go, on the other hand, was really easy to get acquainted with and not too substantial of an effort to get to strong expertise. I've been able to teach Go to junior devs with no background and hand off projects within a couple weeks. Rust is awesome, but fits in a very different bracket IMO.

Re: 2017 Rust Roadmap

#7

Post by nrjames » Sat, Oct 22, 2016, 1:21 AM UTC

adamnemecek wrote: post #5

I would also suggest taking a page out of Apple's playbook and providing some official sample apps like https://developer.apple.com/library/content/navigation/#sect... . Reading the books is one thing, but seeing the patterns actually used is another. You don't need as many as Apple, only a couple really, but make sure they are well written and straddle a couple of use cases. And like go crazy with the idioms, I want…

I agree with the example apps. Some annotated source would be great, too. Something similar to the way dc.js annotates this example: https://dc-js.github.io/dc.js/docs/stock.html

Re: 2017 Rust Roadmap

#8

Post by sotojuan » Sat, Oct 22, 2016, 1:25 AM UTC

Really nice! I try to learn as little languages at the same time as possible so sadly I have no time for Rust at the moment, but it looks like it'll only get better.

Re: 2017 Rust Roadmap

#9

Post by cm3 » Sat, Oct 22, 2016, 1:28 AM UTC

> Rust should integrate easily with C++ code

The day that Rust manages to have always up to date Qt bindings that do not force you to make compromises compared to the C++ API, I think the C++ support will be at a comfortable level. Right now there are fresh efforts in the Rust and Haskell camps to solve this cleanly in a modern way. It would certainly help if the consumption of C++ APIs via llvm (which is used a lot byt Rust) was made a first class feature like you can import and export C APIs. Exporting C++ classes is a whole different story and may not map in any reasonable way to Rust modules or crates.

Re: 2017 Rust Roadmap

#10

Post by pcwalton » Sat, Oct 22, 2016, 1:29 AM UTC

fixxer wrote: post #6

Awesome to see the learning curve addressed with such high priority. I like Rust and I'd like to use it more, but I generally lean on Go or C for writing anything that needs performance. I can't quite get past the awkward, fumbling stage with Rust. Go, on the other hand, was really easy to get acquainted with and not too substantial of an effort to get to strong expertise. I've been able to teach Go to junior devs wi…

It's important to note that Go and C have very different design goals from Rust. Go was never designed to have zero-cost abstractions (garbage collection being the most obvious outcome of this, but there are many others), and it has a runtime. C was never designed for safety and security, memory safety or otherwise. In short, Go sacrifices performance and C sacrifices safety, while Rust's goal is to sacrifice neither.

Addressing the learning curve of Rust is important, but we aren't going to be able to do it by adopting concepts from Go or C. By and large, they just don't apply.