On Tuesday, 19 August 2014 at 17:11:21 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
This is why I won't bother investing any time in it for a few
more years at least. It may have really cool language
features, big development team and famous names behind it but
in terms of compiler maturity it is still a very long road to
go until it gets even to DMD capabilities.
I won't look at it again for a different reason. They're the
types that say "A monad is just a monoid in the category of
endofunctors, what's the problem?" but they're serious.
My last interaction with Rust was when I commented that
adoption would be hurt if they require an understanding of the
memory model just to get started, to which they responded more
or less that it's not a big deal. At that point I concluded the
language was lost. I can only imagine what it will look like in
five years.
Actually I also don't think it is a big deal. Yes, it is crucial
blocker for any "casual" adoption and will like to prevent its
adoption in web service domain, for example (in a way similar to
vibe.d) - but language has never been designed for such use
cases. It is for complicated projects with non-trivial
performance requirements and there is certain point of complexity
where educating hired programmers about category theory may be
cheaper than dealing with maintenance in overly lax language.
It does look like a niche language but a very good one in
declared niche.
