[delayed]

That's right. One of the knocks on those early versions was that every new release broke previous code in significant ways. Which is one reason that v. 1.0 was so important to the community. They could finally commit code using a stable language.

Early Rust was a very different beast.

But could say the same about Python pre-1995 or so.

My biggest problems with Rust, though, are Cargo and Crates.io, not the language.

crates and cargo are better than Rust actual

... for you

Cargo and crates.io are something C/C++ developers would kill for (which is why cargo is what it is, I think).

Just because there is an absolute shitshow for C/C++ build systems doesn't automatically make Cargo & Crates.io good.

There is a fundamental philosophical disagreement I have with the NPM style of package management and this method of handling dependencies. Like NPM, Crates.io is a chaotic wasteland, destined for a world of security & license problems and transitive dependency bloat.

But honestly I'm sick of having this out on this forum. You're welcome to your opinion. After 25 years of working, with various styles of build and dependency management: I have mine.

I wasn't disagreeing with you. My comment was implying that cargo (and arguably rust itself to some extent) was kind of a knee-jerk response to the insane parts of C/C++, for better and also for worse.

Ok that's fair, sorry to be defensive.

But I actually think it's more inspired by people coming from the NodeJS ecosystem than people coming from C++.

Weird, cargo and crates.io is why I ended up deciding on Rust for developing finl rather than C++. The lack of standardized build/dependency management in C++ was a major pain point.