I believe Rust will ALWAYS be beneficial compared to MMM languages because it will save time in the long run.
Programs with Rust will always be rock-stable, unlike many C/C++ programs which are more like a house-of-cards.
Programs with Rust will always be rock-stable, unlike many C/C++ programs which are more like a house-of-cards.
How do you know that? Is there any data backing that up?
I've never seen any research showing that a programming language, no matter how strict (Haskell, Ada, Rust) actually improves the reliability of software, except for comparisons between memory-safe and non-memory-safe languages. It almost always goes down nearly entirely to development process and team skills/experience, showing anything else convincingly would be a huge breakthrough.
Based on the buggy and unstable Python desktop apps I have used, I have a strong suspicion that developing large applications in Python is strongly self-limiting after the initial sprint.
Some of my own Rust code is moderately complex but never showed any signs of instability during development. I often have crashes now and again with my C++ programs. Sure, I fix those afterwards but getting it flawless every time the first time is (for me at least) unheard of.
But this article isn't that, and to make manual memory management more appealing they had to ridiculously inflate the issues that come with ownership-based memory management…
There's not trying to hide that they are biaised, at this point it's Kremlin-level of shameless bad faith.
[1] it looks like they've harvested Rust criticism for an entire year at this point, since they end up even quoting random discord comment from more than a year ago: https://discord.com/channels/273534239310479360/818964227783...
There are actually 45 citations in the article on all angles, but I think you're talking specifically about the anecdotes.
Regarding the anecdotes, I had to add more of those to the borrow checking sections because it was the most surprising to my initial readers. Very little discussion online actually compares borrow checking to higher-level languages with good development velocity; most discussion online compares it to languages like C, C++, Javascript, or Python, so this was new to most readers.
The article also explicitly mentioned that those were anecdotes and colored them differently, so that people didn't mistake them as data.
They also made that part of the article much longer than it was originally.
I can see how that could come across as biased. Perhaps I should have added citations to the other parts of the article so their distribution was more uniform.
When you look at the content itself, it's pretty balanced I'd say (hence the focusing on the other benefits of borrow checking plus the downsides of GC), it's unfortunate that's not coming through as much.