Matthias's suggestion about reframing the context of the purpose of the Rust language struck a chord with me. His post is building a bit off of Niko Matsakis's blog post about the same concept but goes a bit more in depth. There is a perception of Rust as being just a "systems programming" language when really it is a language for building "foundational software".
Rust has the same amount of runtime as C. And since it uses LLVM on the backend, there’s motivation for companies to support codegen via it to build that C compiler; even Intel has retargeted their compiler on top of it these days.
Matthias's suggestion about reframing the context of the purpose of the Rust language struck a chord with me. His post is building a bit off of Niko Matsakis's blog post about the same concept but goes a bit more in depth. There is a perception of Rust as being just a "systems programming" language when really it is a language for building "foundational software".
Foundational software ... is too vague to be useful. Foundational for who, what, what domain? Not buying it ...
My main issue with rust is that it only target mainstream archs.
For any new arch, first there is an asm, then a C compiler.
Imagine i'm designing a new CPU, how difficult is it to have a direct rust-to-asm compiler for it? And the runtime?
So rust has its uses, but only for its targetted archs. Old or esoteric ones are sol.
Rust has the same amount of runtime as C. And since it uses LLVM on the backend, there’s motivation for companies to support codegen via it to build that C compiler; even Intel has retargeted their compiler on top of it these days.