What aspects do you not like about Rust?

Too much complexity, long build times, monomorphization, lack of stability / no standard, poor portability, supply chain issues, no dynamic linking, no proper standard, not enough different implementations, etc. It is a nice language though, but I do not prefer it over C.

> long build times, monomorphization

Monomorphization is what causes long build times, but it brings better performance than dynamic dispatch.

> lack of stability

There was another comment which also never elaborated on how Rust is not stable.

> supply chain issues

Not a language issue, you choose your dependencies.

> no proper standard, not enough different implementations

Is that a practical problem?

> no dynamic linking

There is.

If your like Rust, this is fine, but I will stay with C. I find it much better for my purposes.

He said elsewhere that he does not even use Rust. He uses typescript. I am confused why he is bothering to push Rust when he does not even use it.

I would use it if I had the opportunity, that's why.

> > no dynamic linking

> There is.

Eh, I'm a Rust fan, and I hate the dynamic linking situation too.

I genuinely cannot see how Rust would be able to scale to something usable for all system applications the way it is now. Is every graphical application supposed to duplicate and statically link the entire set of GNOME/GTK or KDE/Qt libraries it needs? The system would become ginormous.

The only shared library support we have now is either using the C ABI, which would make for a horrible way to use Rust dependencies, or by pinning an exact version of the Rust compiler, which makes developing for the system almost impossible.

Hopefully we'll get something with #[export] [1] and extern "crabi" [2], but until then Rust won't be able to replace many things C and C++ are used for.

[1] https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3435

[2] https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3470

> I genuinely cannot see how Rust would be able to scale to something usable for all system applications the way it is now. Is every graphical application supposed to duplicate and statically link the entire set of GNOME/GTK or KDE/Qt libraries it needs? The system would become ginormous.

You don't have to statically link C libraries.

I am referring to Rust scaling up to where C is now (i.e. try to remove C from the picture).

As in, if there will ever be a Rust equivalent of KDE/GNOME (e.g. maybe COSMIC), it will have similar libraries. They will have to be in Rust, and will have to be statically linked. And they will eventually grow up to be the size of KDE/GNOME (as opposed to the tiny thing COSMIC is now).

If it is any consolation, early C did not have dynamic linking either. It was added afterward. From what I understand, UNIX systems had statically linked binaries in /bin until ELF was introduced and gradually switched to dynamically linked binaries afterward.