Re:Rust can be difficult to learn and frustrating, but it's ...
by ilovecaching on Tuesday October 23, 2018 @12:00AM
(#18280626)
Safety and speed are the big words on the box. Usability is harder, because it's somewhat a matter of opinion. As someone who has professionally worked with the expression based Haskell, Erlang, Elixir, and OCaml, I find Rust to extremely expressive. If you come from that camp and feel that OOP is a bad toolkit of abstraction and that higher order functions, typeclasses, type parameters, and ADTs are much more powerful, then I think yes, Rust ticks all the boxs.
Re:Rust can be difficult to learn and frustrating, but it's ...
by bb88 on Tuesday October 23, 2018 @12:01AM
(#18280630)
> If rust could deliver speed without compromising on ease or safety, and I honestly don’t know if it can, then it will absolutely crush the competition.
It has to be more than safe and fast. It has to be a productive language to use. A dev can't sit for 6 months trying to figure out how to write a website, when he can pick up RoR and do it in a day.
Re:Rust can be difficult to learn and frustrating, but it's ...
by village-idiot on Tuesday October 23, 2018 @12:48AM
(#18280797)
That’s why I said “ease” too.
All else being held equal, developers and stake holders will choose the faster language, it just makes sense.
The trick is that speed is typically seen as diametrically opposed to usability, since quite a few languages achieve speed by turning all the safety rails off or existing way too close to the metal for comfort.
If rust could deliver speed without compromising on ease or safety, and I honestly don’t know if it can, then it will absolutely crush the competition.