>And Rust won't work there for a while at least.
Yes, and that is why those industries will choose to ignore it for a while at least.
Chicken and egg.
Re:The cost of forsaking C
by Manishearth on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @05:34AM
(#12642582)
It's not a chicken and egg. Like I said, the Rust team does want to make this happen (and is already doing so from the specification side, though I suspect multiple implementations will come from elsewhere since we already have a couple partial ones). Rust already has lots of folks from other industries trying to use it -- there's plenty of momentum for it to get there. It will take time, but it's not like Rust will never get there without support from the industries you mention (which would be a chicken and egg problem)
Until this happens i will remain skeptical if the Rust community can pull it off without the backing of said industries.
On the other i like being proven wrong. Time will tell.
> though I suspect multiple implementations will come from elsewhere since we already have a couple partial ones)
>Rust already has lots of folks from other industries trying to use it
I'm not up to date. Input would be appreciated here.
Re:The cost of forsaking C
by Manishearth on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @06:05AM
(#12642693)
As for alternate implementations, https://github.com/thepowersgang/mrustc .
As for specification, https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1643 is what's currently happening, i.e. specifying exactly how unsafe code behaves (this is more important than specifying the rest). But the rest will come.
As for the industry, https://www.rust-lang.org/friends.html
Sure, there will be some cases where you absolutely need a standardized language. And Rust won't work there for a while at least. But that's a far cry from the picture painted in the original post.