Lets just hope they do careful and objective testing. There are a lot of Rust apologists due to excitement for the platform and rose colored glasses. You need to test both the "normal" approach and the Rust alternative side-by-side. This is very time consuming and most projects don't do it. They should also consider and test on non-ideal platforms like older hardware where things like rustc can have issues.
The main reason I'm an advocate for this approach is because in my own testing I haven't found Rust to be all that great. It used more memory, ran slower, caused maintenance issues with people not familiar with Rust, still contains bugs and security issues, and the compiler (which is written in Rust) is a resource hog. That's just my experience with it.
The main reason I'm an advocate for this approach is because in my own testing I haven't found Rust to be all that great. It used more memory, ran slower, caused maintenance issues with people not familiar with Rust, still contains bugs and security issues, and the compiler (which is written in Rust) is a resource hog. That's just my experience with it.
Comment