Rust is not "functional ways", though, and Go is certainly not devoid of annoyances (subjectively).
Really wish people would stop having language wars and realize that languages are tools for a job. C is like a flathead screwdriver, C++ is like a philips, Rust like a torx and Go like a hex. You can probably use a flatheat or even a philips for the torx or hex screws but you probably shouldn't, because they're not the right tool for the job.
I love Rust. I use Rust often. I choose it over C or C++ these days for a number of reasons. But I'm not going to write some throwaway little one-off scripts in Rust. I'd probably choose Python if I need to crunch some data, or Node (javascript) to do some quick I/O related tasks.
I'll use a makefile when windows compatibility and graph evaluation speed aren't important, and a shell script when compatibility and graphs aren't important at all.
And so on. The sooner people begin to realize this, collectively, we can stop having these silly "X language is better than Y" discussions.
C has its place. It's simple (quirky, but simple), doesn't take on a philosophy, and has a very, very wide set of compatible toolchains. That is the reality. Perhaps C-like's will take off and replace it (e.g. Drew Devault's Hare[0]) to get us away from most of the quirks, but that probably isn't happening any time soon.
In the same way that "putting ChatGPT in front of a computer-enabled machine gun is irresponsible", so is using unsafe languages in cases where you absolutely cannot afford a security risk without some sort of safeguards, verifiers, etc. and just good ol' fashioned "good engineering". And even in "safe" languages this is often hard to achieve, so it often comes down to the engineers anyway - not the language.
I feel like we have beaten the "C sucks" horse to death so many times that we could extract oil from it at this point. What is the goal with such discussions in 2023?
Rust carries a lot of design decisions heavily influenced from ML and OCaml. The type system and exception handling implements things that look a lot like Monads, but with a bunch of boilerplate code thrown in due to the imperative execution. That sort of syntax turned me away from the language, and probably would for a bunch of other people who don't care for that kind of language design.
I struggle to understand a use case for Hare compared to the other C-sequel type languages.
>Really wish people would stop having language wars and realize that languages are tools for a job. C is like a flathead screwdriver, C++ is like a philips, Rust like a torx and Go like a hex. You can probably use a flatheat or even a philips for the torx or hex screws but you probably shouldn't, because they're not the right tool for the job.
There are far more languages than types of jobs though. If it wasn't for language wars, how would you ever decide which one to use?? :)
It will depend on your goal. Do they produce the same output?
Or just comparable results?
Edit: oh, look at the chances - the ("the [only]" - 2nd to 1st) neighbouring submission is "How small is the smallest .NET Hello World binary". Suggests non overlappable outputs.
