I think the fact that Rust is very popular in the polls, but still hardly ever used, rather indicates that people primarily want to escape from their current dissatisfaction, but then ultimately don't take it seriously with switching to another technology, so as with Ada or others already available. Besides, C++ is also evolving, and formal verification has been possible for many years. There are also proven ways to avoid memory problems. Rust would have to prove itself first. Maybe it solves one problem better, but ten others worse.
back
4 comments
The thesis of the article was "best chance". So if not rust, then what? C++ and Ada have lots of great possibilities, but those possibilities aren't making it into practice (for whatever reason) despite a lot of time and effort.
Apparently, the author thinks that rust might make that leap sooner than Ada/C++. It seems like a reasonable guess, and with some backing by major players, it might well happen.
Sure, there's a lot of uncertainty while we are waiting to see the results from a diverse set of large projects. I have used rust enough to be annoyed by it, but none of the annoyances seemed like a major blocker to rust's future.
> but those possibilities aren't making it into practice (for whatever reason) despite a lot of time and effort.
What do you mean? Ada is used routinely in some industries.
By "possibilities", I mean the possibility as an alternative to (or major safety improvement on) C++, which is what the article is talking about: "Microsoft has deemed C++ no longer acceptable...needs to move...best choice on the market today is Rust".
Ada is a possibility, but it's just not there and does not show signs of being there soon. There's probably not a net movement from C++ to Ada today, and there is no reason to expect differently over the next 5 years.
Rust is not a sure bet either. Lack of major real systems is a big question mark. But basically the article's thesis makes sense to me.
> I think the fact that Rust is very popular in the polls, but still hardly ever used
In what sort of polls is Rust's popularity overrepresented (when compared to industry usage)? A lot of people on Internet forums like Rust, but a lot of people on Internet forums like a lot of languages, especially new ones.
And what is your definition of "hardly ever used"? I can think of plenty of programs I use frequently that make use of Rust (e.g. Firefox). Compare the use of Rust to, for example, Racket or Haskell or Julia (all fine language). I've definitely interacted with programs written in Rust far more than any of those three languages. So at least Rust is seeing some niche usage.
Not trying to come to Rust's defense, just trying to understand this point.
"Hardly ever used" sounds like it might be the result of your personal filter bubble?
see https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2019
Only a small fraction of "Rust fans" are actually using it.
I wonder what percentage of folks (not exclusive to Rust lovers) are stuck with a language at work or in major side projects because of momentum, existing code bases/etc.
I don't think it's just a filter bubble. Look at any programming jobs site. Count how many listings you see for Rust versus any language you'd consider commonly used.
We were not specifically talking about present availability of jobs. I am personally aware of many projects being done in Rust and from my experience, it seems to be growing still.
It might also indicate that a lot of the projects that Rust would be a great fit for tend to live for a long, long, time. That slows down market penetration, regardless of how much better it is.