[Info-vax] Rust as a HS language, was: Re: Quiet?

[Dan Cross]

In article <t2l638$17rl$1 at gioia.aioe.org>,
chris  <chris-nospam at tridac.net> wrote:
>On 04/06/22 01:27, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article<624cdd77$0$704$14726298 at news.sunsite.dk>,
>> Arne Vajhøj<arne at vajhoej.dk>  wrote:
>>> On 4/5/2022 8:21 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>> In article<t2ilf1$18mj$1 at gioia.aioe.org>,
>>>> chris<chris-nospam at tridac.net>  wrote:
>>>>> I think the point is that languages take time to evolve and the path
>>>>> can be unstable until there is enough critical mass to produce a fully
>>>>> documented and standard version. I would expect that to take a decade
>>>>> or more. No good for serious work without that professionalism. Toy
>>>>> and experimental otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> Java doesn't have a "standard" in the sense described here, but
>>>> much as I don't care for it as a language I'd be hard pressed to
>>>> describe it as a "toy" or "no good for serious work."
>>>
>>> Java is not ISO/ANSI/ECMA standardized.
>>>
>>> But the JCP process is really very similar to ISO/ANSI/ECMA.
>>
>> Sounds kind of like the Rust RFC process, but some posters here
>> seem to have suggested that without a document produced under
>> the auspicies of a relevant standards body, a language is not
>> viable for serious work.
>
>I wasn't suggesting that, but it takes years for all the issues
>to be resolved and a language to become mature. That and the
>language tends to be more fully documented formally. Sure, there
>are always issues, but C has been around for long enough now that
>most skilled users are to grips with the limitations and know
>which potentially dangerous edge cases to avoid...

That's demonstrably not true.  C has become a tricky language,
one where most people who claim to be "skilled C programmers"
and who "know which potentially dangerous edge cases to avoid"
are either compiler writers, or deluding themselves.

PS: Rust will be 12 years old this year, but dates back to 2006.

	- Dan C.