Comment

Comment by the__alchemist

My experience with Rust codebases has been different from the Author's. I think his or her points about why Rust should encourage high quality programs makes sense. In practice, most of the Rust OSS I find is poor quality, ie the article's lament of "today's software quality crisis – crashes, bloat and more." I'm suspicious my observations are because I'm viewing select slice of Rust code; perhaps the higher quality code examples aren't OSS, so I haven't seen them.

Examples:

- Rust is well-suited to Embedded. There are a handful of high-quality tools (eg probe-run, defmt, SVD2Rust etc). Most of the higher level libraries, and the chat on Rust embedded communication channels are a mess. Dependency hell, poor APIs, hardware support that's been designed to make trivial examples and never tested on practical firmware etc.

- Backend web dev - Several Flask analogs, but nothing that makes sense to use for a web page. Internally, dependency hell, and filled with generics and Async.

- Graphics programming - Churn, and low-quality results compared to C libraries eg for Vulkan. Fine if you use the libraries that are thin wrappers on the C APIs, but ones that try to apply a Safe or Rusty API are lower quality.

I don't mean this as a disagreement to the article - Rust gives developers tools to make high quality software! The Rust project itself is superb. I'm surprised that his predictions don't match with what we have. (yet)

Discussion

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton