despite developers' positive feelings toward Rust, 97% of them hadn't actually used it.
Who says they love something they have not used???
I might say something seems decent, but no way would I say I *LOVE* a language until I've done a few real things in it.
The top issues that respondents say the Rust project could do to improve adoption of the language are better training and documentation, followed by better libraries, IDE integration, and improved compile times...
I don't see why anyone would "love" any programming language.
I have looked at Rust and written some simple toy programs. But I don't use it for work.
The problems Rust claims to fix, such as memory leaks, buffer overflows, and safe threads, can be done in C++ with "safe pointers", proper programming practices, and coding standards.
So, with a huge code base of working C++, it doesn't make sense to switch. It would be yet-another-language that everyone we hire would need to know. We would be constantly swit
The problem is that in C++ you end up spending more time writing boilerplating and continually keeping up with new standards that you can spend all day writing a function to increment a variable and still not get around to the actual arithmetic until the next day. You can make things abstract easily, but it's much more difficult to make it abstract without also bloating the code, especially if you have developers who code by copying fashionable styles. Ie, there are too many types of safe pointers which just adds more complexity, and more complexity leads to bugs.
Wait a second... (Score:5, Insightful)
despite developers' positive feelings toward Rust, 97% of them hadn't actually used it.
Who says they love something they have not used???
I might say something seems decent, but no way would I say I *LOVE* a language until I've done a few real things in it.
The top issues that respondents say the Rust project could do to improve adoption of the language are better training and documentation, followed by better libraries, IDE integration, and improved compile times...
That is a pretty tall list of things that
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see why anyone would "love" any programming language.
I have looked at Rust and written some simple toy programs. But I don't use it for work.
The problems Rust claims to fix, such as memory leaks, buffer overflows, and safe threads, can be done in C++ with "safe pointers", proper programming practices, and coding standards.
So, with a huge code base of working C++, it doesn't make sense to switch. It would be yet-another-language that everyone we hire would need to know. We would be constantly swit
Re:Wait a second... (Score:2)
The problem is that in C++ you end up spending more time writing boilerplating and continually keeping up with new standards that you can spend all day writing a function to increment a variable and still not get around to the actual arithmetic until the next day. You can make things abstract easily, but it's much more difficult to make it abstract without also bloating the code, especially if you have developers who code by copying fashionable styles. Ie, there are too many types of safe pointers which just adds more complexity, and more complexity leads to bugs.