I don't see how Google is really putting piles of money into Go. In fact, in terms of maintainership and porting I'd say collectively that many other companies are investing more in Go than Google. What can you point to as piles of money?

Perhaps not that much by valley standards, but I'm sure just the salaries of Rob Pike and Brad Fitzpatrick alone would amount to more love than a lot of languages get.

Go's not been receiving any piles of money from Google. Compare Go's API documentation to Rust's API documentation. Where's the `cargo` and `rustup` equivalent for Go? Compare the number of Go packages to the number of Rust packages. Seems Go's not doing so great despite being stable for much longer.

> I just don't see Mozilla having enough resources to keep-up the momentum long-term.

Did you forget about Samsung? Mozilla and Samsung aren't the only two companies backing Rust.

By TIOBE's stats, Go's popularity is up 1.74%. Rust's is up 0.316%.

http://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/

Call it money or whatever, but Go seems to be getting substantial TLC from the people working on it for every point release.

Of course, this could just be an easier thing for them to do since their approach is not as ambitious as Rust's.

When was the last time you heard of Samsung being involved with Rust as a company? I'm fairly sure that is no longer a thing.

Unfortunately, golang is just a different league.

These piles of money don't seem to be amounting to much because rust is still an objectively far superior language.

Google is not a language company and doesn't hire good language people so I don't see this changing.

Disclaimer: I work for Google

No argument on superior, it's just that superior doesn't win the day. Look at C++. Look at JavaScript. It would be surprising if the industry made the better choice for a change.

Hmm--with some edge-case exceptions that never got a strong push outside of some niches (Ada comes to mind, where it achieved some traction in DoD circles), I wonder if C++ wasn't the superior choice given its time and place. By no means is it perfect, but in the early to mid 90's there weren't many competitors with a similar feature set that had anybody pushing hard behind it. To my mind it seems not dissimilar.

If I have to write native code, right now it'll be C++ precisely because it's able to express complex problems with a high degree of getting-it-right (because while I would never claim to understand C++, I feel confident in my understanding of the subset of C++ that I use). I really like Rust and look forward to it being a better fit for what I want to do, and every time I look at it it's getting closer.

Spot on, C++ has always been the best systems language for real world projects until Rust came along.

Yeah but unlike, say, Haskell, Rust seems to have good enough momentum from the right crowds.