One year of Rust

Re:One year of Rust by tatterdemalion on Monday May 16, 2016 @02:43PM (#11708565)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:One year of Rust by kzrdude on Tuesday May 17, 2016 @05:38PM (#11717696)

You're overstating the stability guarantees. The Rust project has formulated it as “hassle-free upgrades” which seems to imply that small, simple edits may be necessary when upgrading to a new Rust version.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:One year of Rust by steveklabnik on Tuesday May 17, 2016 @07:42PM (#11718551)

That's only for changes that are important, though: we don't make unnecessary changes.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:One year of Rust by kzrdude on Thursday May 19, 2016 @02:07AM (#11728338)

Agree. It's important to underscore what was promised and what was not. Otherwise you might get the impression that a promise was broken (when it was not).

[ Parent | on HN ]