Overused
What is the correct amount of usage? Why shouldn't people use the languages they want to?
this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2024
18 points (100.0% liked)
Programming
13212 readers
1 users here now
All things programming and coding related. Subcommunity of Technology.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Overused? According to who?
It has been used more than needed
How does one qualify how much a language needs to be used?
Are you saying Rust is being used in places that you feel C/C++ should be used, and you don't think Rust belongs? Or maybe you are saying Rust is being used in places where C/C++ are not typically used, and you don't feel it belongs there?
The closest thing to context you've given is that you feel Rust has flaws (all languages do), and that Ada is perhaps safer. It's really hard to give any kind of answer without a properly fleshed out question.
you will get better answers to your question, and a more productive discussion in general, if you leave your subjective opinion out of the question.
it’s not fully memory safe (there are some programming languages that are even safer, like Ada)?
for example, you might ask instead "why has Rust gotten widespread adoption, that previous safety-focused languages like Ada did not enjoy?"
I was looking into Rust a few months ago and noticed that most jobs listed seemed to be Web 3, crypto scams. It doesn't seem to be in high demand, from the corporate side of things.
I expect Rust to be inevitable in embedded development, but yeah, that space moves slow, so give it another ten years or so. I will say that embedded is practically jumping on Rust, compared to how glacially it normally moves. You've got big vendors committing to offering Rust APIs, because many of their customers just don't want to code C/C++ anymore.
Corporates are still looking for Java 1.8 Or so I've heard.
On a superficial level it's a lot nicer than Ada for people who didn't learn to program on Pascal. Rust's real flaws don't show up until you need to do large refractors and change your application's memory model.
Let’s bring C into this discussion if we want to talk about overused languages which aren’t fit for purpose. 😂
The ergonomics of Rust are better than C and C++, and programmer productivity is the metric which really matters.
Rust is compiled, and compiled languages are easier to deploy. Especially statically compiled languages like Rust.
Ada might better, but it needs to be updated.
Ada compiler development is also tied to a company which is moving to Rust, and the gnat toolchain developed by Adacore is “Open Source”, eventually, maybe.
That's something I haven't heard before about the memory safety. In what ways is it not memory-safe?