Well, I tried to read that discussion, but it is extremely boring so I ended up skimming it. Someone (mü?) mentioned bikeshedding quite early, and indeed, this was an excellent example of it... But pointless discussions happen all the time in almost any group of people. This is just how people are, so I still fail to see how it is relevant for anyone who just wants to work with Rust, rather than find new friends
What I understood from your comment is that you have no trust in the future of the language, as you think the people governing the development of the language are not professional enough (https://www.rust-lang.org/en-US/team.html#Core-team). Fair enough.
I would say that comment means that you either haven't had much interaction with the community, or you consider yourself part of it.
Why does the community matter so much? Do they refuse to fix the bugs in Rust? Do they make bad decisions about the direction of the language/runtime? Do they make active steps to prevent use of their platform? Do they have a coding culture that makes it hard to work with them (e.g. forced rollout of incompatible changes?) What is so bad about the community from technical perspective?
Rust is ideologically corrupt, and technologically immature; which makes it practically irrelevant. It will never succeed with the current attitude, and changing attitudes once the ball is rolling is tricky business.
How can a programming language be ideologically corrupt? I fail to grasp it... But let's skip this part, as it starts to get interesting for me: what is the technical immaturity in Rust you mention? Missing features? Performance issues? Not available on enough platforms? Bad tooling? Simply not on the market for long enough?
I read a lot of negative comments, about a leftist community, silly name, and Mozilla dying. Mainly subjective things.
But there was little (no?) criticism based on of technical grounds.
So can we say, that Rust is technically solid?
What are the major drawbacks of using it?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I tried to read that discussion, but it is extremely boring so I ended up skimming it. Someone (mü?) mentioned bikeshedding quite early, and indeed, this was an excellent example of it... But pointless discussions happen all the time in almost any group of people. This is just how people are, so I still fail to see how it is relevant for anyone who just wants to work with Rust, rather than find new friends
What I understood from your comment is that you have no trust in the future of the language, as you think the people governing the development of the language are not professional enough (https://www.rust-lang.org/en-US/team.html#Core-team). Fair enough.
I would say that comment means that you either haven't had much interaction with the community, or you consider yourself part of it.
Why does the community matter so much? Do they refuse to fix the bugs in Rust? Do they make bad decisions about the direction of the language/runtime? Do they make active steps to prevent use of their platform? Do they have a coding culture that makes it hard to work with them (e.g. forced rollout of incompatible changes?) What is so bad about the community from technical perspective?
Rust is ideologically corrupt, and technologically immature; which makes it practically irrelevant. It will never succeed with the current attitude, and changing attitudes once the ball is rolling is tricky business.
How can a programming language be ideologically corrupt? I fail to grasp it... But let's skip this part, as it starts to get interesting for me: what is the technical immaturity in Rust you mention? Missing features? Performance issues? Not available on enough platforms? Bad tooling? Simply not on the market for long enough?
I read a lot of negative comments, about a leftist community, silly name, and Mozilla dying. Mainly subjective things. But there was little (no?) criticism based on of technical grounds.
So can we say, that Rust is technically solid? What are the major drawbacks of using it?