Golang

2231 readers

1 users here now

This is a community dedicated to the go programming language.

Useful Links:

Rules:

Posts must be relevant to Go
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Try to keep discussions on topic
No spam of tools/companies/advertisements
It’s OK to post your own stuff part of the time, but the primary use of the community should not be self-promotion.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Ategon

RandomDevOpsDude

austin

Rust Vs Go: A Hands-On Comparison (www.shuttle.rs)

submitted 1 year ago by nebiros to c/golang

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Oh no, not another 'Is Rust better than Go?' article. Seriously, haven't we all had our fill of these comparisons by now? But before you sigh in exasperation, hear us out!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Walnut356 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

code that's been written today has been made obsolete by a language feature in the latest nightly build

I mean couldnt you say that about any language? There's lots of old C code that's obsoleted by features in C11. There's lots of stuff written in python today that's obsoleted by stuff in the 3.13 alpha. It's just kinda how things go.

Doesnt the edition system prevent this from being too big of an issue anyway?

[–] atheken 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure you could say it about “any language,” but I think you’re skipping a lot of nuance with your examples: python has notoriously had a long transition from 2 -> 3. C is 40+ years old, and the semantics and idioms of the language aren’t changing from month to month.

I think the parent comment is making the point that the pace of change and evolving idioms/features of Rust means that code you write today may need to be updated in a far shorter timespan than the typical timeline for working code (a few months, rather than several years). The bitrot is just a lot faster right now than other languages.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Updating the language doesn't mean the code will be broken. It just might just not be the best way to do thst anymore. Like a lot of traits I have written over the years got similar ones in std now and I could switch to them, but my old code still works.

[–] Shareni 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean couldnt you say that about any language?

Looks at a standardised language like common lisp

The language itself has been locked for decades, but you've got libraries and compiler instructions that add features like OOP, strict typing, async, etc.

Long live the macro!

There's lots of stuff written in python today that's obsoleted by stuff in the 3.13 alpha

Didn't rust base a lot of its marketing on the promise that there will never be a rust 2, and that all code will be backwards compatible?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Didn’t rust base a lot of its marketing on the promise that there will never be a rust 2, and that all code will be backwards compatible?

I think that's Golang, not Rust