Shouldn't they support c an c++ over rust ?Shouldn't they support c#, coffeescript and go before scala or ruby ?
All the latter programming languager are more mature, more used than the supported languages.
That's a fair question.
Rust was a personal itch, but it also provided a good test for supporting native compilation while providing an excellent dependency management story. We learned a lot from Rust that will apply to C/C++ and we're talking about how we want to address the dependency management story of that ecosystem (and we still need to build a C/C++ client library).
Scala support came alongside Java (and because we're a Scala shop). Ruby was low-hanging fruit because the client already existed. Coffeescript support would be pretty easy to add on top of Javascript pending some demand and interest. C# (on mono) and Go are both interesting languages for us to reasonably land that didn't make this round.
We definitely have more to announce on this front soon. And by all means, we love hearing our users request their favorite languages. :-)
For coffeescript: you can use JS, so just compile before uploading. C#: they'd have to start using mono, or host on windows with .net - neither one may be a good solution for them.
When they added Java, they get Scala "for free" in a way. I don't think there's much difference in supporting architecture.
</speculation>
c/c++ are legacy. c# is an m$ thing, coffeescript and go are beginner languages. scala and ruby are used in production.
> All the latter programming languager are more mature, more used than the supported languages.
I wouldn't call c#/coffeescript/go more "mature" than scala. And popularism is unrelated to the topic.