Rust is not a good C replacement

There's a lot of stuff I could say here, but I'll stick to > Attempts to integrate it with other build systems have been met with hostility from the Rust & Cargo teams. This is very much not true. We've put in a ton of work to support this. Arguably, we've put in too much design work and not enough implementation work; we've had a few different attempts at making this work even better than it does today, and we…

> Go is the result of C programmers designing a new programming language, and Rust is the result of C++ programmers designing a new programming language”. This isn’t just a metaphor - Go was designed by plan9 alumni That may be true, but Go has a garbage-collector, and Rust does not. Garbage-collection strikes me as being against the principles of both C and C++, but especially C. Drew makes some solid points about the merits of C, even despite its…

You're not going to write microcontroller firmware in Go, but several people are doing just that in Rust, and it actually works quite well. Philosophy aside, in actual use Go is a better Java, not a better C. If your C program could have been a Java program, then go ahead and use Go. But lots of C and C++ programmers who consider Rust and decline to consider Go do so because the trade-offs that Go makes (garbage collection, error…

So Rust doesn’t aim to be a C replacement, I’ve never heard anyone suggest that. It’s clear that it aims to be a C++ replacement. C++ is also used more than C in the world, so I’m not sure I get the argument that it isn’t useful. Rust will likely succeed in replacing much of C++ or at minimum push C++ in its direction. Lots of programs need concurrency, and yeah it’s a huge pain in C or C++. Go…