[nfrmatk]

It seems to me that the point of the article is that "all the demand" is not just for C++, C, Java, Typescript, Python, etc. There is increasing demand from larger companies for Rust.

No one is forcing you to learn Rust. You don't have to bring yourself spend time learning it. You can keep writing those other languages.

Those languages have been around for a while and they'll continue to be around for a while more. Rust is just getting some time on that stage as well now.

[throwawaymaths]

I think some dyed in the wool programmers are not afraid to learn something new but from experience see some nightmarish patterns in rust (e.g. c++ style templates for generics, phantom) and also watch less experienced programmers/architecture astronauts successfully argue to move things to rust without considering the future pain and are legitimately worried about being eventually forced to use it. Doesn't help that e.g. government is now saying "don't use memory unsafe languages".

[xelamonster]

I learned C++ first and Rust only within the past couple years, and I'd never willingly choose write a project in C++ again with the option to use Rust instead. Generics can get messy and the phantom data is indeed awkward, the difference to me is that in Rust if you go wrong the compiler most often can highlight the exact issue and suggest accurately how to fix it. My experience with C++ is that the compiler errors tend towards being so incomprehensible they sometimes felt intentionally misleading. The Rust compiler enforces correctness to a degree that gives me significantly more confidence in the programs I write; C++ is a major improvement on C here but still gives you so many ways to shoot yourself in the foot that would just not compile in a Rust project.

[OJFord]

Almost ten years ago I was really excited about rust, but the sort of thing you describe has really put me off. It's become 'C++ but with better guarantees', whereas I liked it for being 'python ergonomics with stricter correctness' or something.

I really think there's room for a language more focussed on (sacrificing a bit for) usability/readability/DX - rust has great features like doc tests, in-module tests, structural pattern matching, macros, traits, .. but<some<of<the<container<crap, 'that>, ends<up, necessary>>>>> really ruins it for me. And on the one hand yes it is trivial, it is just syntax. But I do think it matters?

(It's late, I'm tired, not a very well formed thought, but coincidentally I was daydreaming about designing a language earlier today, so here we are.)

[EasyMark]

Do you expect people to become expert rust programmers over night? I have 15 years of c++ under my belt and only recently got the chance to do some rust. Of course some of my rust code is going to look like c++ until I get some practice, some code review criticism, and personal study in. I’m here for the journey, and I am enjoying rust’s perks and mostly less mental overhead.

[pornel]

Rust superficially looks like C++ to avoid looking weird to existing C/C++ programmers, but semantically it's quite far from C++. Rust's generics are not like C++ templates: they're only type based, and don't use syntax-based matching, don't have tricks like SFINAE. ODR is guaranteed by construction. Trait lookup is simpler: there's no overloading, no inheritance, no implicit conversions, and interaction with namespaces is simple (ambiguity is an error).

Phantom type looks alien if you haven't used it, but for what it does, it's actually a pretty simple. It's there to explain in Rust's terms what an opaque type or a foreign C/C++ type does. You just need to give Rust an example of an equivalent type, and you get a correct as-if behavior, and you don't need to even know that you've just configured type's variance and destruction order checking.

[mav3ri3k]

Fair enough. I have personally experienced pain with phantoms.

But then what would you advice to do ? There are nightmare patterns in rust and c++. Looks to me as pick your poison just that one is new and other has been around for fair bit.

[zeroCalories]

There's always demand, but at what cost? Mixing languages sucks. Rewriting stuff is not always an option. New projects could use Rust, but will you be able to get the head count? There are whole armies of skilled C++ devs, but only a small group of competent Rust devs. This is the exact same problem Kotlin ran in to.

[mav3ri3k]

It is great that the ecosystem is growing, but there is still time for things to trickle down.

As college student I have invested time into rust because I see value in the language but there are absolutely zero entry level jobs or internships. To get my foot in, my only real options are C/C++.

[zabzonk]

a few years ago there was a big thrust here for haskell. and now it has all but gone. i do get a feeling that the same will happen with rust - but we will see.

[dralley]

Rust already has orders of magnitude more adoption in the real world than Haskell

[davidw]

I always had the impression that Haskell was primarily an academic language. Not that you can't use it for practical things, but a bit different in purpose compared to Rust.