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)?
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.
Corporate wants people to port their COBOL code into Java 8.
Most of them have decided on a tech tech a decade ago and they’re not going to change anything about it unless they absolutely have to, whether that’s Java or C# or Python or Ruby…
Rust is gaining traction, but mostly for new projects or big revamps, and there’s a lot more shitty old code to maintain than there are opportunities to develop anything new. Besides, most companies don’t need Rust (or C or C++ for that matter), JVM/.NET/NodeJS/Go is fast enough for even intense corporate workloads and doesn’t require people to put in the effort to make everything perfectly sound.
Corporates are still looking for Java 1.8 Or so I’ve heard.
Overused? According to who?
More like “overhyped”
It has been used more than needed
How does one qualify how much a language needs to be used?
Are you saying Rust is being used in places that you feel C/C++ should be used, and you don’t think Rust belongs? Or maybe you are saying Rust is being used in places where C/C++ are not typically used, and you don’t feel it belongs there?
The closest thing to context you’ve given is that you feel Rust has flaws (all languages do), and that Ada is perhaps safer. It’s really hard to give any kind of answer without a properly fleshed out question.
According to who?
Just in my opinion. It’s probably a trending programming language right now. More loved than C or C++ by some developers
It’s a hyped language because it solves many problems that has persisted with C and C++ - without having to rely on garbage collection.
If anything, it’s underused. Not that I believe everything should be rewritten in Rust. That’s just stupid.
As a C++ developer Rust’s borrow checker is very interesting - it promises to solve my issues with C++ without the issues that make other languages (ie Java, Python…) have in the real world. (remember we choose C++ for a reason, Java isn’t correct for our application - if Java is correct you should use that instead)
If you learn Rust, you’ll find that you’d choose it over C/++ even without the brrow checker. Every little part of the development experience is just so much better.
You’re upset that new technology is displacing a 50 year old technology with a ton of well known flaws?
Overused
What is the correct amount of usage? Why shouldn’t people use the languages they want to?
