I am firmly convinced that had Rust been more mature at the time, the pivot from Python would have beem into Rust instead of Go.
Am I on the right track?
Am I on the right track?
Python and Go are both memory-managed languages. That is perhaps the hardest part of programming (outside of getting the code to do what is intended).
Go and Rust are both compiled, but Rust requires the developer to figure out all of the memory management before compilation, which slows down development to a crawl.
Almost no company will rationally choose Rust over Go if they know how the development speed tradeoff looks like.
I would have chosen C++, but given that isn't the new darling any longer as in the 1990's, that begs the question of the new kid in town that everyone is now rewriting everything into.
Once I realized how difficult it is to write complex code that actually satisfies the borrow checker, I was perfectly happy with writing somewhat slower code in Go or Python.
Anyway, I clarified on a sibling comment the reasoning behind my question.
So they would probably never rewrite from Python into C or C++, because not cool, too hard kind of motivation, otherwise they would not have picked Go.
So that begs the question, if the obession as you call it, was already a thing back then, would Rust have been the lucky candidate?
As for endorsed by Google, see Dart and Flutter, Android Things, Fuchsia.
Now everything combined, plus Docker and Kubernetes, yes it was definitely a factor.
It's a language with its pros and cons, I like the simplicity, it's a good choice for services that just expose an API/GRPC/etc... and the performances are not that bad.
This "but rust is faster" obsession often comes from people that don't even know what they are talking about or are even able to consider if thinking about performance make sense for a specific use cases. Sometimes, or at least it did before LLMs, having something simple to modify was more important that chasing supposedly higher performance because the rust people keep blabbering about it.
> would Rust have been the lucky candidate?
Probably not, considering that the author give me a "simple solutions are best" vibe.