On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 17:42:50 +0200 Mattias Andrée <maand...@kth.se> wrote:
Dear Mattias, > I've completely ignored Rust. What's the problem with it? in regard to my argument: It has abysmal compile times and the compiler is extremely bloated. In general though, I see multiple issues with it: The crate-system completely circumvents package-systems and a Rust program quickly depends on dozens of crates, enabling the risk of problems we've seen numerously with node.js (e.g. the leftpad-fiasco). Language wise, I like the security concepts of it and it's true that memory issues are the main bugs in a usual C-program, however, languages like Ada (which is standardized and stable) has had the same features for years and even goes beyond that (concurrency built into the language, guarantees, much easier to read, etc.), allowing compile-time guarantees against data-races and memory ownership. It's a good foundation you can build your code on, and that's what nuclear power plants and airplanes are programmed with. Compared to that, programming in Rust is like building on sand. A lot of elementary stuff is put into separate crates, there are 10 competing ways to do things and the "favourite" method changes every few months, requiring people to heavily invest time into restructuring their programs and keeping up with the pace. Anyway, I can't say it enough: Check out Ada 2012 (and the SPARK subset) if you care about "secure" languages. It's not as lean as C, but you end up solving so many problems with it, especially in regard to software engineering and safety. With best regards Laslo
