Oh no, not another ‘Is Rust better than Go?’ article. Seriously, haven’t we all had our fill of these comparisons by now? But before you sigh in exasperation, hear us out!
Oh no, not another ‘Is Rust better than Go?’ article. Seriously, haven’t we all had our fill of these comparisons by now? But before you sigh in exasperation, hear us out!
I mean couldnt you say that about any language? There’s lots of old C code that’s obsoleted by features in C11. There’s lots of stuff written in python today that’s obsoleted by stuff in the 3.13 alpha. It’s just kinda how things go.
Doesnt the edition system prevent this from being too big of an issue anyway?
Sure you could say it about “any language,” but I think you’re skipping a lot of nuance with your examples: python has notoriously had a long transition from 2 -> 3. C is 40+ years old, and the semantics and idioms of the language aren’t changing from month to month.
I think the parent comment is making the point that the pace of change and evolving idioms/features of Rust means that code you write today may need to be updated in a far shorter timespan than the typical timeline for working code (a few months, rather than several years). The bitrot is just a lot faster right now than other languages.
Updating the language doesn’t mean the code will be broken. It just might just not be the best way to do thst anymore. Like a lot of traits I have written over the years got similar ones in std now and I could switch to them, but my old code still works.
Looks at a standardised language like common lisp
The language itself has been locked for decades, but you’ve got libraries and compiler instructions that add features like OOP, strict typing, async, etc.
Long live the macro!
Didn’t rust base a lot of its marketing on the promise that there will never be a rust 2, and that all code will be backwards compatible?
I think that’s Golang, not Rust