Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

>with strong opposition to rust

This isn't evident. There's some discussion that Rust isn't ready for certain applications yet for one reason or another, e.g. compiler certification, but I have not seen "strong opposition" to the idea of using Rust once the the necessary preconditions are in place. On the contrary, my understanding is that there are some automotive partners working with Ferrocene on a certified Rust compiler, to open up those possibilities.

All of the industries you mention are notoriously slow-moving, so much so that they're often stuck on C89 and C++03. That they're not jumping to adopt Rust ASAP is not evidence that they hate Rust. Obviously, if they take a decade to upgrade to newer versions of the same language, they're not going to be quick to adopt a language that's not even a decade old.

> they’re developing an entirely new language to replace c++ themselves rather than use rust.

The literal announcement FAQ of Carbon said, quote, "if you can use Rust, ignore Carbon". They're making Carbon because they have massive amounts of C++ code that they want to seamlessly interoperate with. If you don't have that constraint, the Carbon developers recommend using Rust instead. They're not adopting Carbon "instead" of using Rust, they're adopting it alongside using Rust. They announced they're going to start using Rust in Chromium FFS!

I don't feel that you're being very honest in your arguments.




There is strong evidence, by the opinions of developers working in those industries. Because rust imposes more work onto the developer, it takes less time to write C++ and debug any safety issues than it does to get anything working in rust. There are C++ game engines with far fewer man hours put into them than bevy that have produced much more spectacular results.

Stop taking that quote out of context.

“Existing modern languages already provide an excellent developer experience: Go, Swift, Kotlin, Rust, and many more. Developers that can use one of these existing languages should. Unfortunately, the designs of these languages present significant barriers to adoption and migration from C++. These barriers range from changes in the idiomatic design of software to performance overhead.”

Their recommendation is to use a language that is available now, one of which is rust, instead of waiting on carbon. They didn’t imply any technical advantage of rust over carbon, because there aren’t any. Being less flexible isn’t an advantage.


>There is strong evidence, by the opinions of developers working in those industries.

citation needed. I've listened to plenty of CppCon talks and people in those industries don't seem averse to using Rust, just pragmatic on the timelines.

BTW, Airbus Space & Defense is looking for an intern to experiment with using Rust. That's totally something that a company that hates Rust and has already decided to never ever use it would do.

https://ag.wd3.myworkdayjobs.com/en-US/Airbus/job/Manching/I...




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: