Rust 1.x seems to not always be backward compatible in practice

Re:Rust 1.x seems to not always be backward compatible in pr... by jen20 on Sunday June 13, 2021 @01:33PM (#27494449)

Depending on what you consider “mature”, sure. Here is a short list of programming languages where I have had to install an up-to-date version on recent Debian, Ubuntu or RHEL derivatives in just the last month:

- Node.js

- Python

- Go

- Rust

- C++

- .NET Core

- Java

None had an up-to-date version in the distribution repositories. It’s a problem - and for those who defend it as otherwise while lamenting the rise of Docker, perhaps it’s worth some careful introspection about what a majority of people actually want from an operating system distribution, and whether the concept is in fact a relic of the days when software was distributed on CDs via the mail.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rust 1.x seems to not always be backward compatible in pr... by gspr on Monday June 14, 2021 @03:00AM (#27500048)

Really? For what reason did you have to install a newer Python, a newer C++ compiler, or a newer Java runtime?

> None had an up-to-date version in the distribution repositories.

Of course not. A Debian release is meant to not change – except for security fixes – for the duration of its 2 year cycle. That's a feature, not a bug.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rust 1.x seems to not always be backward compatible in pr... by jen20 on Tuesday June 15, 2021 @12:37AM (#27511347)

To run software written using them.

Operating systems are servant of their applications, not vice versa.

[ Parent | on HN ]