On Monday, 9 November 2015 at 15:29:44 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
On Monday, 9 November 2015 at 14:13:45 UTC, Nordlöw wrote:
Yet another shallow language comparison that needs to be
corrected:
https://www.quora.com/Which-language-has-the-brightest-future-in-replacement-of-C-between-D-Go-and-Rust-And-Why/answer/Matej-%C4%BDach?srid=itC4&share=1
Besides the author's obvious bias, the only thing in there that
is factually wrong is his statement that Rust provides the same
modeling power as C++ (lack of OOP). But other than that,
nothing really jumps out at me as being plain incorrect.
I'd argue the familiarity part of Rust. I could put a C or C++
programmer down in a chair and have them using Go or D in an hour
or two, I don't think the same can be said of Rust - especially
when you consider lifetime annotations. Which comes back to the
"Doesn't offer clear tradeoffs" — Rust has a clear tradeoff in
that it requires far more from the programmer, IMO.
