Re: The Case for Rust (in the base system)

On 2024年09月03日 07:36, the silly Alan Somers claimed to have said:

I know I reply off Alan, but just to keep it somewhat clean, I'll reply
to anyone since my last reply.

About C developers being in decline, I actually disagree with that.
I have seen younger generations getting interested in C the more they
get overwhelmed by the amount of new languages to chose from.
And even in the modern languages like Rust or Zig, C still serves as a
baseline, so even if those people were to learn any of the modern "low
level" languages, they'll learn C eventually anyway.

About chosing Rust over C++, C++ might have been a more natural choice
from C, but C++ is significantly more bloated and deals with lots of
technical debt, which in C is still very minor, despite being older.
So even if you rewrite a C program into C++, you'll still be at least
doubling the compile times.

About DARPA's research, researches in general conducted over the past
130 years or so are mostly just bought and paid for by special interest
groups, so not really something you should be taking too seriously,
unless it's a large scale randomized control group study, and it's
reproducable.
I wouldn't doubt that The Rust Foundation put lots of money into DARPA
to make them come to the conclusion that we should in fact all rewrite
decades upon decades worth of  C and C++ code into Rust for no reason.

-- 
lain.
PGP public key: https://fair.moe/lain.asc