> Correct, both of which you have to take into account when picking a programming language today.
Shrug, you're not really wrong. Early adopters of Rust will suffer (have suffered) some issues. Maybe you can try it out in 2060, when Rust will be around the age C is now. To Rust's credit, for this metric it's around ten years further along than any other language that we could propose to supersede C today.
> I wouldn't call C++ a wild success. It's failed to supplant C for its entire life, and thrives only in a few niches.
I disagree, but I'll admit my bias here having spent very nearly all of my career working on C++.
Shrug, you're not really wrong. Early adopters of Rust will suffer (have suffered) some issues. Maybe you can try it out in 2060, when Rust will be around the age C is now. To Rust's credit, for this metric it's around ten years further along than any other language that we could propose to supersede C today.
> I wouldn't call C++ a wild success. It's failed to supplant C for its entire life, and thrives only in a few niches.
I disagree, but I'll admit my bias here having spent very nearly all of my career working on C++.