rust is sucks dont start lol

I think rust is fine.

@Lolegic, the community is toxic n annoying

@efewss,

Ngl that's not much of a reason to say something sucks. You're saying the community sucks in your response, but I was talking about the language itself.

@atariXD Rust may be great for some stuff but it ain't no substitute for the typical Object-oriented programming languages

Rust is just a bunch of unnecessary complexity that will leave you scratching your head and pulling out your hair. Instead, stick with the typical basic ones and save yourself the headache

@atariXD, rust is boring 

@atariXD True, Rust certainly has its uses and is great for certain applications

But if a person is looking to learn a language quickly and easily, it's probably not the best choice

@atariXD, I would agree with you on a few things however there are a few things I disagree with you on too:

If it sucks, why do developers which code in Rust make more money than those which code in any other language?

This is a good question, however the salary of developers is determined by a number of factors that mostly aren't associated with the language: their experience, location, industry and the demand for their skills (the less of them the higher the demand).

Rust is a relatively new language that was made in 2006 and is widely considered to be an advanced and secure programming language. For this reason Rust developers in industries pinpointed on security are likely to have a bonus or advantage. (system programming too). Also the demand for rust developers has increased in recent years thus creating a competitive environment with a lot of money inbetween that can be given around.

The salary of a developer in the language you're going for should not be the only factor as it gives you false expectations going in. Instead rely on personal interest!

Rust is speed

This argument is somewhat true since Rust is a very fast programming language, however it wouldn't be without some of these traits:

Rust is low-level allowing it's developers to make code that is already optimized & closer to the system metal.

Rust's compiler is one of the more aggressive ones that heavily modify your code going in to provide faster speeds & better performance, meaning your code isn't really your code it's the compilers version of it.

Rust's standard library is way smaller than those of multiple languages, meaning you'll have to do things more with rust's macros and libraries. It's common sense that smaller things are generally faster.

And my final point be that rust isn't the only fast language in the market right now, there are several other's that go head to head with it or draw with it. If rust's amazing compiler didn't do some of the things it does to your code it would much definitely be slower!

Rust is the future

If we look at this from an analyst's views, everything technically is the future according to the laws of Accumulation & Growth which state that growth is a natural consequence of existence. If we route this law up to rust, we can say that as long as rust continues to get maintained & exist it'll naturally grow.

Rust is not the singular programming language of the future, it's one of many alongside with Kotlin, Elixir, F#. Which share many similar traits with rust including their syntaxes.

There are many great creations such as Pingora (connects Cloudflare to the internet and takes over one trillion requests per day)

This is an interesting argument considering there are also great creations such as Google's Search Engine which were made in C++ and Python and now primarily uses Java for it's core.

There's also the APEC (All Purpose Electronic Computer) which was made in Assembly.

But we can always agree to disagree..

@Mole, This is just straight ignorance. What additional complexity does rust add? The compiler literally PREVENTS you from making mistakes, it's meant to stop you from "scratching your head and pulling out your hair." Also rust has full support for object oriented patterns, it literally supports polymorphism...

every single person that replied on this thread is completely braindead, especially Mole/Miyav & Sina.

Rust is a far better language than C++, this is undisputed. Strictly speaking, Rust doesn't really have OOP as it's missing inheritance ( not to say that it doesn't have support for object oriented patterns, it has full support for the patterns. ) but that can be emulated via composition. Rust is definitely a substitute for C++, Rust is everything C++ wants to be.

And if we're talking about confusing, clearly you ( Mole & Sina ) haven't seen C++ template metaprogramming, you clearly haven't seen the nightmare people went through with template specialization & SFINAE just to be able to have compile time type comparisons. Even with C++ 20 concepts ( requires clauses and such ), it's still worse than Rust's traits. Rust did dynamic vs static dispatch correctly with traits, Rust macros are MILLIONS of times better than the C preprocessor ( which C++ uses for macros ), and there's so many more reasons why Rust is simply better. Not a single person that has replied to this thread has enough C++ experience or programming experience to make opinions on what language is better than the other. Maybe you think rust is unnecessarily complex, but that's just because you haven't even scratched the surface of C++. You have no idea how complex C++ can be simply because you're just starting out.

@Sina, the fact Rust's standard library is small doesn't mean anything, you could bloat the standard library as much as you want with functions and etc, that wouldn't make a difference in speed because what isn't written, isn't ran. I don't even have to argue with you because you already proved your stupidity and your lack of programming experience by saying this ( arrow indicate incorrect answers ) :

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/798043651309699122/1073706315047780492/image.png

( Rust's OOP "emulation" doesn't limit it much, if at all. You can do everything that C++ can, but better, with traits :muscle: you're a beginner programmer Sina, stop trying to act like you're knowledgeable at all ).

17 reasons, 15 incorrect, and 1 disputable. You have 1 somewhat "valid reason", and it's not even all that valid because macros can do that, and are very flexible.

@luxiferrwoo, I wasn't specifically referring to C++ tho what makes you think I was? I think you seem to be heated up for some reason considering you went first point to calling a group of people "braindead". isn't this unnecessary negativity, why can't we debate in a civil manner?

Also adding onto this: I don't think adding somewhat old pictures of someone who was clearly lost on the topic at the time inorder to discredit them is very mature..

@0x90 Yeah yeah, Rust is great and all but if you're not careful it'll have you doing more debugging than actual coding. And sure it's got the bells and whistles of object oriented programming but when push comes to shove it's still just a glorified C++. Takes more time and effort to code in Rust than it does with the more popular languages.

@luxiferrwoo 

Rust may not have inheritance and that's why there are no confusion regarding virtual functions vs static functions like in the case of C++. But what about the lack of variadic templates? Variadics is WAY more powerful than Rust's traits which only provide a partial solution for dynamic dispatch (it doesn't even come close to the flexibility of virtual functions). Plus I don't think Rust macros can ever equalize that complexity as well as compile-time meta-programming using template metaprogramming with C++. So before you start calling everyone braindead, understand every language has its own pros & cons and stop being an arrogant person while you have less experience than most of us here.

@Mole, clearly you must have some mental issues. you claim to have more experience than me yet everything you said is incorrect, the fact C++ needs variadic templates already says enough about its "macro" system. Rust's macro system makes C++ variadics completely obsolete, less verbose for whoever tries using your API / library, and C++'s template meta programming is made completely obsolete by rust's implementation of bounded parametric polymorphism. your "experience" isn't showing, next time actually do your research and you'll maybe be more than rexi's gf. if anything, you're the person with the least amount of experience in this entire thread, you're below Sina. and C++'s virtual functions aren't flexible at ALL LOL, the fact you even said that show that you really know NOTHING about rust traits and how they work. You need to learn more C++ and more Rust to even start to talk, because right now you're showing your lack of experience in both.

The fact you called it a glorified C++ already says enough about how little you actually know. Also, Rust's compiler error messages are FAR FAR FAR better than C++'s ( for C++ any compiler ). Debugging most of the time won't even be necessary because the Rust compiler is godly, it literally forces you to write good code. If Rust is a glorified C++, explain why C++ is trying to be like Rust :rofl: https://isocpp.org/files/papers/D2806R0.html

Also, Rust supports all OOP patterns including inheritance, it just isn't an explicit feature. And it doesn't need to be either because it's not limited by it whatsoever.