Hacker News Reader

Comment by davydm | Hacker News Reader

I don't know why some people are losing their minds over it being in go... ok, so I kinda expected rust because that's what all the cool kids are doing - rewriting in rust - but I think go is a pretty good choice for a domain like this.

View on HN

Rust is a PITA. I started a few Rust projects as well, but it just doesn't vibe with me. I don't like the verbosenes of Go, but it's mostly consistent, and there are accepted best practices. Rust is like the Perl of system programming.

In my experience, Rust has been a language that writes as terse and bloated at the same time; though it is perhaps my own skill issue. I tried hard to love the language but I ended up walking away.

> Rust is like the Perl of system programming.

So not true. I'm hardly a Rust aficionado, but Rust is definitely a spiritual successor to C++, while Go is more of a successor to Java.

> while Go is more of a successor to Java.

In what sense?

They're both blub languages, designed to be simple and boring but with lots of grafted-on cruft from the designers not realizing that complexity is a waterbed.

garbage collected, the usecases I see it, generally being used to write network services

don't forget generics added a decade after language inception in both cases

Please do not compare rust to C++, that is an insult to C++

In my experience, C++ is by far the most common language Rust is compared to. Rust will never stop being compared to C++.

Seriously? I love C++ and barely use Rust, but they both seem like pretty good languages to me.

Normally I don't think anyone would be losing their mind, but this is a Microsoft team creating a widely popular Microsoft product and they use a Google product (Go) instead of using another Microsoft product (C#) that is arguably competing with it. It strikes as odd why a Microsoft team isn't comfortable with/trusting a Microsoft product. I think it makes sense that some people are taking this in a way that maybe they shouldn't trust in C#'s future either.

yeah, i saw that inference too; but i think it's a silly one - it would be like those same people being upset that new windows core features aren't written in C# (and, we shouldn't forget the other targeting languages)

but i'm also a fan of languages, so my opinion may be screwy ;p

The fact that the Windows team rejected C# actually was a reason to think twice about it (and Office, and ...) . If nothing else it had deep implications for .NET's backwards compatibility story, and it sent the message that people with existing C++ codebases shouldn't view it as a natural next step despite the .NET team originally pushing dialects of C++ and P/Invoke pretty hard.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com