News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The cost of forsaking C. Parent comment

Re:The cost of forsaking C by banachtarski on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @04:54AM (#12642433)
> The Rust team has a very high commitment to stability, and does way more to maintain stability than any other language/compiler I know of (by testing new versions and potentially-breaking-changes against the entire ecosystem)

I'm all for this but I really don't see how Rust's stability can hold a candle to the international standards committees that govern C and C++ (not to mention the investment from the big tech companies in developing and implementing these standards)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The cost of forsaking C by TheCoelacanth on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @10:14AM (#12643951)
Rust is far more stable than C was six years into it's life. It hasn't caught up with C yet, but C had a 38 year head-start.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The cost of forsaking C by Manishearth on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @05:09AM (#12642499)
> I'm all for this but I really don't see how Rust's stability can hold a candle to the international standards committees that govern C and C++ (not to mention the investment from the big tech companies in developing and implementing these standards)

That's an orthogonal issue; that's adoption. More adoption means more stability, regardless of whether or not the thing has a standards committee.

Of course Rust can't hold a candle to the level of adoption C has.

[ Parent | on HN ]