Even through it has some flaws, e.g. it’s not fully memory safe (there are some programming languages that are even safer, like Ada)?
That’s something I haven’t heard before about the memory safety. In what ways is it not memory-safe?
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.
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.
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.
