I wouldn't have read the article if it'd been labeled that, so kudos to the blog writer, I guess.
While the language itself is great and stable, the ecosystem is not, and reverting to more conservative options is often the most reasonable choice, especially for long-term projects.
But outside of games the situation looks very different. “Almost everything” is just not at all accurate. There are tons of very stable and productive ecosystems in Rust.
I completely disagree, having been doing game dev in Rust for well over a year at this point. I've been extremely productive in Bevy, because of the ECS. And Unity compile times are pretty much just as bad (it's true, if you actually measure how long that dreaded "Reloading Domain" screen takes).
Borrow checking is a way to make manual memory management safe, ECS works around manual memory management entirely, so it doesn't need borrow checking to be safe (which is also why it's popular in C++, which doesn't have a borrow checker) but because it's Rust, you have strong guarantees about the safety of it, while in C++ you can still shoot yourself in the foot if you don't use ECS the right way.
Also Rust is more than safety: https://steveklabnik.com/writing/rust-is-more-than-safety
If you want to squeeze the maximum performance of your hardware (which is indeed the case for game engines) then all your options are Rust, C and C++. In which case is by far the more ergonomic choice on every aspects.
You could add a lot of research/experimental and/or legacy languages as well (Modula 3, Odin, D, why not FORTRAN, even) but none of them are credible alternatives to C or C++ like Rust has managed to become. And none of them are polished enough (be it in terms of errors messages, libraries, docs, onboarding material, build toolchain) to be considered superior to Rust in terms of developer ergonomics even if you set aside safety.
And again, borrow checking isn't a feature, it's an implementation of the feature which is memory safety without performance tradeoff. Even when using a paradigm that doesn't interact with the borrow checker, you're still using the feature itself (especially because all of the underlying building blocks which aren't using ECS directly are benefiting from the borrow checker's validation).
Replace Rust with Bevy and language with framework, you might have a point. Bevy is still in alpha, it's lacking plenty of things, mainly UI and an easy way to have mods.
As for almost everything is at an alpha stage, yeah. Welcome to OSS + SemVer. Moving to 1.x makes a critical statement. It's ready for wider use, and now we take backwards compatibility seriously.
But hurray! Commercial interest won again, and now you have to change engines again, once the Unity Overlords decide to go full Shittification on your poorly paying ass.
You can also always go from 1.0 to 2.0 if you want to make breaking changes.
Yes. Because it makes a promise about backwards compatibility.
> Rust language and library features themselves often spend years in nightly before making it to a release build.
So did Java's. And I Rust probably has a fraction of its budget.
In defense of long nightly feature more than once, stabilizing some feature like negative impl and never types early would have caused huge backwards breaking changes.
> You can also always go from 1.0 to 2.0 if you want to make breaking changes.
Yeah, just like Python!
And split the community and double your maintenance burden. Or just pretend 2.0 is 1.1 and have the downstream enjoy the pain of migration.
If you choose to support 1.0 sure. But you don't have to. Overall I find that the Rust community is way too leery of going to 1.0. It doesn't have to be as big a burden as they make it out to be, that is something that comes down to how you handle it.
If you choose not to, then people wait for x.0 where x approaches infinity. I.e. they lose confidence in your crates/modules/libraries.
I mean, a big part of why I don't 1.x my OSS projects (not just Rust) is that I don't consider them finished yet.
The distance in time between the launches of Unreal Engine 4 and Unreal Engine 5 was 8 years (April 2014 to April 2022). Unreal Engine 5 development started in May 2020 and had an early access release in May 2021.
Bevy launched 0.1 in 2020 and is at 0.16 now in 2025. 5 years later and no 1.0 in sight.
If you want people to use your OSS projects (maybe you don't), you have to accept that perfect is the enemy of good.
At this point, regulators and legislators are trying to force people to use the Rust ecosystem - if you want a non-GC language that is "memory safe," it's pretty much the de facto choice. It is long past time for the ecosystem to grow up.
Yeah because that's when it was open sourced, NOT DEVELOPED.
See https://godotengine.org/article/first-public-release/
> Godot has been an in-house engine for a long time and the priority of new features were always linked to what was needed for each game and the priorities of our clients.
I checked the history and it was known by another name Larvita.
> If you want people to use your OSS project
Seeing how currently I have about 0.1 parts of me working on it, no I don't want to give people false sense of security.
> At this point, regulators and legislators are trying to force people to use the Rust ecosystem
Not ecosystem. Language. Ecosystem is a plus.
Further more the issue Bevy has is more of there aren't any good mature GUI libraries for Rust. Because cross OS GUIs were, are and will be a shit show.
Granted it's a shit show that can be directed with enough money.
I don't even look at crate versions but the stuff works, very well. The resulting code is stable, robust and the crates save an inordinate amount of development time. It's like lego for high end, high performance code.
With Rust and the crates you can build actual, useful stuff very quickly. Hit a bug in a crate or have missing functionality? contribute.
Software is something that is almost always a work in progress and almost never perfect, and done. It's something you live with. Try any of this in C or C++.
If not, the language they pick doesn't really make a difference in the end.
It is like complaining playing a music instrument to be in band or orchestra requires too much effort, naturally.
Great musicians make a symphony out of what they can get their hands on.
From what I’ve heard about the Rust community, you may have made an unintentionally witty pun.
Here's a thought experiment: Would Minecraft have been as popular if it had been written in Rust instead of Java?
Although points mentioned in the post are quite valid.
The amount of platforms they support, the amount of features they support, many of which could be a PhD thesis in graphics programming, the tooling, the store,....