Thinking of learning a new language. What do you guys think about rust?

Go for it. You'll love it!

@FrodoSwaggins what do you like about it?

🍇

Rust is also on my to learn list since it can also be used for webassembly

@shexohex never stop talking about it :p

@asgs
Ha! Go.
Sorry, I'll show myself out.

It's awesome. Traits are great and lifetimes/borrowing rules make it much easier to understand the intentions of the author when a reference is held in a struct.

how’s the job demand for Rust compared to Go or python?

rust compiler:
you can’t do it this way
....
n times later
I can now compile it to you

great language with memory safety unless you use unsafe c++ code

@toriyuno not nearly as good, but really it would be easy to convince someone to let you write some small service using it

@toriyuno golang is more about networking stuff,
python is more about interface and scripting,
rust is about lower level
I’ve been attending c++ conference last year and there was rust already so if you’re c++ dev it can be helpful

@FrodoSwaggins how is python orthogonal? early opportunities? It's been the #1 most loved language on SO for 4 years in a row. That's a long time, and kind off how the job market doesn't reflect that.

@FrodoSwaggins wow. Never thought of it that way. So that's what you mean by system development. Makes sense. Thank you.

Now to just think of a project

@asgs "Go for it. You'll love it!"
I see what you did there. No pun intended 😂

@Devnergy no, I realized the (unintended) pun later :-)

What Rust seriously lacks is an ISO standard. Right now, it's some floating sand dune.

Back then, Pascal was comparable to C, but did not have a (useful) ISO standard, and that was a big reason why Pascal failed.

Also, Rust is backed by Mozilla, but Mozilla itself has made so many bad decisions that their main product Firefox is becoming irrelevant, and that doesn't bode well for Rust.

Rust might be able to replace C++, though it doesn't look probable. It won't replace C however. Technically, it could, but it lacks C's simplicity just as C++ does, and where C is being used now (e.g. embedded), Rust is likely to be regarded as just another puzzle language.

Also, Rust's current backend LLVM is a concern. The compiler crash I filed as bug years ago still has nobody assigned to even look at it, so that's nothing I'd want to rely on.

@Fast-Nop
Why does Rust actually need an ISO-Standard?
If it gets standardized, the same thing will happen as with C.
A fuckton of implementations will spawn, each with their own language-extensions, but all projects will focus on one or two implementations, and building on top of their language-extensions, making it impossible yo compile the code with any other implementation, making multiple implementations irrelevant.

@metamourge how would you want to compile a project from 10 years ago? In C, you just tell the compiler which exact C standard has to be used, and that wouldn't work without ISO standards.

For things that aren't possible in Rust, people use the unsafe escape hatch anyway to interface C code, and that in turn allows also for interfacing with assembly if need be.

Look at Pascal that didn't have a useful ISO standard - what that got you was many implementations, too, and they were incompatible.

If you want to avoid that situation, you'll need a proprietary language, but Oracle has made clear why that is to be avoided.

@Fast-Nop you know so much @_@