> Out of the bunch, Rust has impressed me the most. They have delivered on much of what we set out to deliver with Midori, but actually shipped it (whereas we did not). My hat goes off to that team, seriously, because I know first hand what hard, hard, hard work this level of type system hacking is.
> In particular, I’m still conflicted about whether all those type system extensions were warranted. Certainly immutability helped with things far beyond safe concurrency. And so did the side-effect annotations, as they commonly helped to root out bugs caused by unintended side-effects. The future for our industry is a massively distributed one, however, where you want simple individual components composed into a larger fabric. In this world, individual nodes are less “precious”, and arguably the correctness of the overall orchestration will become far more important. I do think this points to a more Go-like approach, with a focus on the RPC mechanisms connecting disparate pieces.
Like, opting out of purity annotations or forced immutability?
I'm not saying these desicions are good or bad, I don't know much about system programming. But I often ask myself what the main motivators for a language are.
On the other hand, I think it is very important that some notion of purity be incorporated, even if only as an opt-in.
Oh, how did you achieve that? :)
I wanted to know how you could get a Rust-job (using it as primary programming language) today :)
I'd hit up these people: https://www.rust-lang.org/en-US/friends.html
Shouldn't it be called `unique` instead?
In the end, we decided that these are two equivalent perspectives, and decided to stick with the more traditional mutable/immutable distinction.