5 ms·

The author seems very anxious because Rust is getting traction and they don't like Rust. They're afraid that one day Rust will become a "monoculture" and everyt

The author seems very anxious because Rust is getting traction and they don't like Rust. They're afraid that one day Rust will become a "monoculture" and everything will be written in it. I like Rust, but I consider this very, very unlikely. Rust has actually brought more choice to the programming language scenario. If we're talking about monoculture, let's talk about C/C++. For decades this was the only viable option for systems programming. All new languages were focusing on a higher lever. Languages for lower level stuff were rare. There was D, but it never got enough traction. Then Rust appeared and there is finally an alternative. And not only that, I because of that, other language designers decided to create new systems languages, and now we have Zig, and Odin, and Vale, etc. So if anything, Rust is helping in breaking the monoculture, not creating it. C and C++ are not going away, but now we have alternatives. And I think it's important to acknowledge that even if you don't like a language, if you see a bunch of software being written in such language, it's because the language is useful. I don't like C++ but I admit it's damn useful! People are writing interesting software in Rust because they find it useful.

ajross 2y ago
FWIW it was LLVM that catalyzed the modern florescence of programming language innovation. Rust is just another result of that shift, not its cause.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
pjc50 2y ago
Rust is challenging people because it declares several long-inadequate things about C/C++ to be inadequate (security issues, dependency management), and provides alternatives which show that it doesn't have to be like that. The rewrites will inevitably be long and painful. Rewrites always are. But the onus on anti-Rust people is now to demonstrate a better language to rewrite in first, rather than just sitting in the status quo waiting for the steamroller driven by a crab to very slowly run them over. D is interesting but seems to be a solo project, I'm not sure why it's not had traction. Maybe it's not different _enough_.
- fxtentacle 2y ago
  This is not meant as a critique of you, but your comment includes a hint of what bothers me with some Rust evangelists. I would call it "slightly entitled over-optimism". I have a C++ service running in production. It's been in production for 10-ish years with minimal updates. It'll probably keep running just fine for the next 10 years. With that in mind, "the onus on anti-Rust people is now to demonstrate a better language to rewrite in first, rather than just sitting in the status quo waiting for the steamroller driven by a crab to very slowly run them over." just doesn't make much sense to me. If the status quo is fine, there's no "onus", there's no difficult decision to be made, there just isn't any rewrite. The anti-Rust people will probably be fine by doing ... nothing.
  - tormeh 2y ago
    I don't think anyone believes there will be no C++ codebases in the future - that's crazy talk. What could happen in a decade or two is that there'll be no _new_ C++ codebases. Popular languages are retired to legacy status from time to time, and C++ is completely outclassed by Rust.
    - bayindirh 2y ago
      People love to think that C++ is only used in systems programming, the thing is C++ is used everywhere. FORTRAN is being developed and improved, and new code, most notably in scientific domain, is still being written. What Rust did to C++ is what clang did to GCC. Wake the giant up. Rust will go nowhere, but it's the same for C++. Thinking that C++ will just fade to black is wishful thinking.
      - kosolam 2y ago
        Since C++ still evolves and changes, I guess greenfield C++ projects in the future can limit themselves to a subset of the newer improved language thereby C++ will continue living by that way as well.
        2y ago
yimmothathird 2y ago
[flagged]
lynndotpy 2y ago
I would like to echo this sentiment. I like Rust, but I can't see a Rust monoculture. From my experience, Rust is an absolute improvement in developer experience around so many corners. I'm looking forward to the future where Rust is well established and boring, and all its round edges have been solved, even if that means adopting another new and exciting language :)
bryanlarsen 2y ago
IMO there was only a brief period of monoculture, and only if you consider C & C++ to be part of the same culture, which is a stretch. It started in the mid-80s when people stopped writing programs in Pascal and/or assembly, and stopped in the mid-90s when Java & Perl started to get used extensively.
- ceronman 2y ago
  I was talking about a monoculture specifically in the systems programming area. Java, Perl, PhP, Python, Ruby, JavaScript, C#, Go, these got popular but they use garbage collection and have limitations for systems programming. C and C++ were the only options for a long while.
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    Systems programming is just a niche. A large niche, but just a niche. But between when Pascal & Assembly stopped being used widely and before Java started being used widely C & C++ were used for pretty much everything.
- mananaysiempre 2y ago
  > if you consider C & C++ to be part of the same culture, which is a stretch That’s my main gripe with most pro-Rust comments of this kind, to be honest. There are a few ways to write C and a lot of ways to write C++, and most of the C is quite unlike most of the C++. (I’m not counting marginal cases like raw GObject or raw COM as C here, I think those count as basically separate languages.) The problem is, the Rust I’ve read (and read about) is methodologically and stylistically a replacement for most of the C++, but not a lot of the C. I don’t dislike the theory behind Rust—I’ve written Haskell, I’ve written SML, I read the Tofte&Talpin regions paper and some of the subsequent research more than a decade ago. I do dislike when people ask me to switch or even try to, of all things, shame me into switching from C to what presents itself as a better C++, in largely the same way that I dislike attempts to switch to C++ that claim it’s the same thing as C. No it isn’t. And I largely tune out when I read “C/C++”, because it implies the author does not get it. (I’m aware there are other people that do get it, some of whom work on other programming languages. They just don’t write posts proposing Rust replace C.)

ajross 2y ago

FWIW it was LLVM that catalyzed the modern florescence of programming language innovation. Rust is just another result of that shift, not its cause.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

pjc50 2y ago

Rust is challenging people because it declares several long-inadequate things about C/C++ to be inadequate (security issues, dependency management), and provides alternatives which show that it doesn't have to be like that. The rewrites will inevitably be long and painful. Rewrites always are. But the onus on anti-Rust people is now to demonstrate a better language to rewrite in first, rather than just sitting in the status quo waiting for the steamroller driven by a crab to very slowly run them over. D is interesting but seems to be a solo project, I'm not sure why it's not had traction. Maybe it's not different _enough_.

fxtentacle 2y ago
This is not meant as a critique of you, but your comment includes a hint of what bothers me with some Rust evangelists. I would call it "slightly entitled over-optimism". I have a C++ service running in production. It's been in production for 10-ish years with minimal updates. It'll probably keep running just fine for the next 10 years. With that in mind, "the onus on anti-Rust people is now to demonstrate a better language to rewrite in first, rather than just sitting in the status quo waiting for the steamroller driven by a crab to very slowly run them over." just doesn't make much sense to me. If the status quo is fine, there's no "onus", there's no difficult decision to be made, there just isn't any rewrite. The anti-Rust people will probably be fine by doing ... nothing.
- tormeh 2y ago
  I don't think anyone believes there will be no C++ codebases in the future - that's crazy talk. What could happen in a decade or two is that there'll be no _new_ C++ codebases. Popular languages are retired to legacy status from time to time, and C++ is completely outclassed by Rust.
  - bayindirh 2y ago
    People love to think that C++ is only used in systems programming, the thing is C++ is used everywhere. FORTRAN is being developed and improved, and new code, most notably in scientific domain, is still being written. What Rust did to C++ is what clang did to GCC. Wake the giant up. Rust will go nowhere, but it's the same for C++. Thinking that C++ will just fade to black is wishful thinking.
    - kosolam 2y ago
      Since C++ still evolves and changes, I guess greenfield C++ projects in the future can limit themselves to a subset of the newer improved language thereby C++ will continue living by that way as well.
      - 2y ago

yimmothathird 2y ago

[flagged]

lynndotpy 2y ago

I would like to echo this sentiment. I like Rust, but I can't see a Rust monoculture. From my experience, Rust is an absolute improvement in developer experience around so many corners. I'm looking forward to the future where Rust is well established and boring, and all its round edges have been solved, even if that means adopting another new and exciting language :)

bryanlarsen 2y ago

IMO there was only a brief period of monoculture, and only if you consider C & C++ to be part of the same culture, which is a stretch. It started in the mid-80s when people stopped writing programs in Pascal and/or assembly, and stopped in the mid-90s when Java & Perl started to get used extensively.

ceronman 2y ago
I was talking about a monoculture specifically in the systems programming area. Java, Perl, PhP, Python, Ruby, JavaScript, C#, Go, these got popular but they use garbage collection and have limitations for systems programming. C and C++ were the only options for a long while.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  Systems programming is just a niche. A large niche, but just a niche. But between when Pascal & Assembly stopped being used widely and before Java started being used widely C & C++ were used for pretty much everything.
mananaysiempre 2y ago
> if you consider C & C++ to be part of the same culture, which is a stretch That’s my main gripe with most pro-Rust comments of this kind, to be honest. There are a few ways to write C and a lot of ways to write C++, and most of the C is quite unlike most of the C++. (I’m not counting marginal cases like raw GObject or raw COM as C here, I think those count as basically separate languages.) The problem is, the Rust I’ve read (and read about) is methodologically and stylistically a replacement for most of the C++, but not a lot of the C. I don’t dislike the theory behind Rust—I’ve written Haskell, I’ve written SML, I read the Tofte&Talpin regions paper and some of the subsequent research more than a decade ago. I do dislike when people ask me to switch or even try to, of all things, shame me into switching from C to what presents itself as a better C++, in largely the same way that I dislike attempts to switch to C++ that claim it’s the same thing as C. No it isn’t. And I largely tune out when I read “C/C++”, because it implies the author does not get it. (I’m aware there are other people that do get it, some of whom work on other programming languages. They just don’t write posts proposing Rust replace C.)