On 12/30/2013 05:29 PM, Patrick Walton wrote:
In general I understand the concern, but there are also a huge number of people who just want the language to stabilize so that they can use it in production. The window for relevance is finite and we've been designing the language for a *long* time at this point.
I understand and share this view, but see it as one side of the story: the other side beeing that the language has evolved pretty much in recent times, and this in part about several core features (pointer management, traits, basic data structures, error handling...). Obviously much remains unclear to the proto-user-base, and is felt as unstable and susceptible to drastic evolution still (maybe it's not for you, but maybe you are wrong on this ;-).
I guess a significant number of people would prefere seeing the language go on evolving the time needed to have it reach a point where at least core constructs look like beeing close to as good as possible (considering the state of present knowledge about programming is or should be: read, probably much too few). I personly would cry when I see Rust ending up beeing yet another failed replacement for C (for the present, it would be so in part because it's much too difficult to use).
Denis _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
