Before Go and Rust came out, the mainstream statically-typed languages were C, C++, and Java. Java was also one of the few "modern" languages that can idiomatically use multiple cores. So yes, Java was pretty de facto.
Go does not scale well and it is a dumb language, not that that is bad. But just that it does not feel like a improvement to switch to Go.
Rust is still new and I think it will not get mass adoption like Java because of higher learning curve.
The rest of the differences are just having different standard libraries/tool chains. I don’t think that, for a novice knowing neither, rust is somehow much harder than c++
I think this argument only really applies to rust’s learning curve if one assumes that each year universities asses the programming language world for the best teaching languages and pick out those which can be used for the courses and are easiest to use. They obviously do not do this and you can tell because they picked c++ (which is actually at least three languages to learn with the preprocessor macros and the functional programming language that is hidden in the template system)
What do you mean? I've seen huge services built in Go handling an enormous amount of traffic.
(Disclosure: I work at Google, primarily in C++ and JS)
final var a = foo() ? bar() : baz();
var a int
if foo() {
a = bar()
} else {
a = baz()
}Are there any articles to back this up? I'm aware that the scheduler and networking integration are certainly opinionated. Nevertheless it seems to work very well for most applications that I have seen so far.
Also other things like you have to import “strings” to use features like split and substring, instead of them being defined on the string struct itself, which makes code awkward. No string interpolation which is quite ridiculous. The list goes on.