> Give it 40 years and people will be saying "rust bad, new thing good".
Why is this an argument? Yeah, personally, I'd be very happy if in 40 years there's something better than Rust. It's been a solid few decades of C prominence, and moving from lang to lang should of course not be something that happens every few years. But on the scale of 40 years? I'd hope we aren't all still using something made today in 40 years, let alone a few years old.
Who said it was an argument? It's merely an observation of what I've witnessed here on HN: endless sentiment about rust and how everything should have been written in it.
The linux kernel was initially written 30+ years ago. Rust didn't exist. C did. Complaining about it being written in C does nothing to benefit anyone.
> I'd be very happy if in 40 years there's something better than Rust.
> Complaining about it being written in C does nothing to benefit anyone.
For what it's worth, I agree. It's already written, so rewrite it yourself or use a Rust-based OS or work on Rust internals/specs in order to improve the language.
But I also believe that sometimes it can be a legitimate discussion. It can serve as a reminder that often these languages have footguns that even experienced developers that insist they can use C effectively will eventually fire off.
Why is this an argument? Yeah, personally, I'd be very happy if in 40 years there's something better than Rust. It's been a solid few decades of C prominence, and moving from lang to lang should of course not be something that happens every few years. But on the scale of 40 years? I'd hope we aren't all still using something made today in 40 years, let alone a few years old.