Many people see this as a problem. The response to TypeScript choosing Go over Rust was pretty gross imho, no one should be abused for choosing a language.
While at the same time, the .NET team routinely talks about .NET image problem outside traditional Microsoft shops, which naturally decisions like this aren't helping a tiny bit.
As for AOT compilation, there have been multiple approaches since the early days, and the latest, Native AOT is good enough for everything required to write a TypeScript compiler, including better WebAssembly support than the Go compiler, thanks to Blazor infrastructure.
At a given point after being a C# programmer for years I still encountered patterns that were completely unreadable to me.
Same thing will happen to Wasm as it decides to add more and more high level stuff “to avoid shipping multiple GCs” and “to get different languages to talk to each other.” As soon as you want to abstract over more than “a portable CPU and memory” you get into that mess.
Never worked in the past better than JVM and CLR, but let's keep trying.
C# did not “have to absorb every idea from F#”. This is not how programming language development works. You can read LDM notes at https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/discussions?discussions... and specs are documented in the repo.
> rather than making F# a viable programming language
F# is a viable language aside from using specific few libraries that don’t play with it nicely or around writing ref struct heavy code. I’m not sure what makes you think it is not. In comparison, it is probably more viable for shipping products than Scala, Clojure, OCaml and Haskell.
C#: A lot of LINQ style code was really hard to grok for me. Like a language in a language. The language got really huge in general. While it was fine as a "better Java" for most purposes.
And Google did do exactly that with Fucshia, which doesn't seem to be going to power anything beyond Nest screens.
Can you link to the abuse?
Before anyone gets triggered and starts typing up a reply: "SUBSET" is the word I used.
There was also a Rewrite it in LISP post[1] fan. Where is the
"The Lisp community is unfortunately plagued by this subset of devs who are zealous (and downright toxic) in their shilling for their favorite language."
Somehow in the past 3-4 years it's only been that subset of Rust devs that have been wailing about: "WHY NOT REWRITE IT IN RUST?".
Often they're mostly the same type: anime pfp, walls of text of pompous technobabble as if they were some elite caste of arcane cyberpriests preaching the gospel of Rust, etc.
There's a reason "just rewrite it in Rust" has become such a meme.
Sure, you got me. If someone says the earth is actually a cube, I have to go defend the spherical chads.
In this case, it's the sheer disconnect between RIIR askers, and the sheer number of people painting Rust devs with a continent wide brush.
It's very in-group vs out-group reasoning.
Let's demonstrate it. For example: I'm a Java dev, and I see a Java dev, being a moron, so I'll say "What a moron". But if that guy was a C# dev, I'm going to say "C# devs are morons". See the error committed here?
> There's a reason "just rewrite it in Rust" has become such a meme.
Just because something is a meme, doesn't make it true, either. Like it was true around the time of Rust 1.0. But that's been like 10 years ago.
It isn't even the worst part about Rust community.
I have no idea how you can accuse me of this when I made a big disclaimer in my original comment:
>Before anyone gets triggered and starts typing up a reply: "SUBSET" is the word I used.
So? There is a subset of X lang (both bigger and smaller than Rust), complaining why not rewrite in X.
But only Rust devs ever get the flak. Because it's a played out meme, or something. Or it triggers the Rust dev, whatever.
Hey, that's a productive attitude when attempting to fix CI!
(or figuring out why smaller compiler output performs worse)
But that subset of devs has largely disappeared/moved on to other langs.
Some of the worst comments have been scrubbed but they might be in one of the internet archival sites.
A Rustacean implied Go was not memory safe and that Microsoft couldn't understand the power of Rust. Steve Klabnik & others told them off. But other Rustaceans, like Patrick Walton, argued that Go has memory safety issues in theory.
Rustacean, Gopher... this is an embarrassing way of looking at it.
And, speaking of, Go is not a memory safe language when you reach for its concurrency primitives as it very easily lets you violate memory safety (as opposed to Rust, .NET and JVM, where instead you get logic bugs but not memory safety ones).