The Rust home page makes it sound like Rust is some sort of a panacea...

The Rust home page makes it sound like Rust is some sort of a panacea. It leads one to believe that they'll get the power of C++, but with greater "safety".

But the more I look into Rust, the more uneasy I start to feel.

Despite all of the claims about how Rust is safer and leads to better code, the Rust compiler and standard library, both of which are implemented in Rust, are full of bugs [github.com]! Don't forget that this is Rust code written by people who ought to know Rust better than anyone else; they designed the language after all! If they can't write non-buggy Rust code, then we shouldn't expect less-talented Rust users to be able to do any better.

It's also a big problem that there's only one implementation. If you run into a bug with it, and they don't fix it promptly, then you're likely fucked. At least with C++ there are multiple high quality implementations from different vendors. You can use GCC and Clang on most platforms. Then there are other systems like Intel C++, MSVC++, and so forth. You aren't left at the mercy of a single implementation when you use C++.

The syntax of Rust is unremarkable. It's like a bad version of C++ in many ways. Its resource management approach is also inflexible and impractical, despite the claims that it's one of Rust's most significant benefits. You're typically better off using modern C++ techniques. You'll get just about the same amount of safety, but with much fewer headaches. Even C++'s standard library, which is not known for being very good, is often better than Rust's.

It took them forever to get Rust 1.0 released. They were constantly changing their mind about anything and everything. While some evolution of a programming language is to be expected, all we saw from them was spastic thrashing about. It got so bad that you couldn't write code on a Monday and reliably have it compile by the following Friday! The fact that it took libcore up until release 1.6 to "stabilize" just goes to show how bad things were. The supposed "stable" release was full of non-stable interfaces!

The Rust community gives me a particularly bad feeling. They're rather tyrannical about enforcing their code of conduct. They even have a moderation attack squad [rust-lang.org] to go after anyone they deem to be an enemy! I've never seen this kind of orchestrated control exerted over the community of any other programming language. This sets off warning alarms for me.

There's no reason to use Rust, in my opinion. You're better off with C++, or D, or Java, or Scala, or C#, or Go, or Swift, or one of the many other non-Rust languages out there. The language isn't very good, the standard libraries aren't very good, there's only one implementation, and the attitude of the community is downright frightening. I think you're better off not using Rust.

Other urls found in this thread:

github.com/thepowersgang/mrustc
internals.rust-lang.org/t/im-moving-away-heres-my-two-cents/3767?page=2
esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7294
viva64.com/en/b/0504/#ID0EISAE
viva64.com/en/b/0251/#ID0EANBO
viva64.com/en/b/0208/#ID0EMTBI
viva64.com/en/b/0262/
myredditvideos.com/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Rust really riles people up for some reason, both pro- and against shills. It's fascinating. Never seen anything like it with other languages.

Low effort b8

Perhaps it's 'because'' of the claims about how Rust is safer. It could be that the "safety" claims make programmers complacent and attract shitcoders too dumb for C++.

That's what you get from unstandardized languages driven by hipsters with a pseudo-academic mindset employed by a single (shitty) corporation.

It's like some weird cargo-cult attempt at imitating C++, but different for the sake of being different. The result, of course, is a mess.

Indeed. Imagine if all the brain power that goes into fighting with the borrow checker went into making quality software.

The syntax was created to attract C/C++ idiots, but they're not really getting C/C++ idiots because it's too different so they can't understand it, and they're alienating everyone else because C/C++ syntax is bad. They should have copied OCaml because it's more elegant and it fits the semantics better.

kys

wrong: github.com/thepowersgang/mrustc

why does this matter?????????
btw:
C has been standardized by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) since 1989


really makes me think..............

Unrelated but do you have an actual argument for why rust syntax is worse than perl?

rust always wanted the webdev/wymyn crowd because C/C++ programmers are all evil white cis men

yeah_well_thats_just_like_your_opinion_man.webm