As someone who has worked with a lot of Rust libraries and applications, your estimate on quality is completely made up hyperbole with the clear intention of maligning Rust.
I have experienced far more success in using Rust and its library ecosystem than I ever have in other languages.
Yes there are bugs in somethings, yes there are others that don’t follow best practices, but throwing out a number of “80%” completely dismisses how solid and capable so many pieces of Rust software are.
As somebody who has written a lot of cruddy, unmaintained Rust library bindings because I needed them for a project, I'm speaking, in no small part, about my own work here. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
90% of everything is crap- C or Rust- because there are a whole lot more low-effort libraries and tools than high-quality, maintained, documented ones. There's less Rust code, so the low-effort tools are more visible.
Rust is my favorite programming language, and I use it for everything where a REPL isn't critical (there Python still wins) unless other factors prevent the use of Rust, like the need to work with others or run on weird embedded architectures. I've been writing Rust since before 1.0, was at the 1.0 launch party in SF, and even contributed the (hilariously small, but) std::iter::once API.
So- my intention was "clearly" to malign Rust? Well, actually, it was to defend it. Again, sorry if that wasn't clear, but ...assume good faith next time! Please!
I have experienced far more success in using Rust and its library ecosystem than I ever have in other languages.
Yes there are bugs in somethings, yes there are others that don’t follow best practices, but throwing out a number of “80%” completely dismisses how solid and capable so many pieces of Rust software are.
reply