On memory unsafe Rust: It tends to come crashing down when unsafe is necessary, for both reasoning about unsafe is harder than in C++, and the rules for unsafe in Rust is an active area of research. Do you know all the intricate rules of unsafe (not all which have been defined), can you reliably predict what is safe and what is not without using Miri? Miri that cannot test all? Are you an expert on aliasing and pinning? Can you describe what tree borrows are?
On doubly linked lists: Sorry, but to implement a doubly linked list in Rust well, you have to go through trials and tribulations. A whole book was written about an epic of implementing doubly linked lists in Rust: https://rust-unofficial.github.io/too-many-lists/ . And if all that is required for a data structure as simple as a doubly linked list, what will then be required for some of the more complex data structures?
I think it is fine for C and C++ to be relegated for use caches where they make the most sense. I don't see the point of comparing them to niches, markets or cases where for instance garbage collection is fine.
And, I already mentioned Go, Swift and Ada.
Objective-C is not really on my radar, it's specific to Apple, and it doesn't seem like Apple is betting on it for the future.
D and Nim are languages with low momentum relative to others.
I am not sure the AOT approach will work. Maybe, maybe not. There are direct and indirect obstacles, I believe. D is probably interesting here; as I understand it, it supported both GC and no-GC. But, that meant that a lot of libraries used GC, and thus were not necessarily good options for applications that required no-GC. In some ways, a programming language can also be what people build with it and what its ecosystems are like.
That seems more an argument against Rust than one for, sorry. Library assistance, not part of the standard library, does not seem to be used much, not many examples.
> Use at your own risks[sic]!
>This is very much an Alpha quality release, at best.
> Doubly linked lists aren’t that important today.
I guess Rust is just not a viable or good language if one cannot even implement easily something as basic as a doubly linked list. Doubly linked list is the bare minimum; if that is not easy to implement, more complex data structures will often be even worse.
Rust, contrary to public claims, often does worse on memory safety than C++, which is a sad state of affairs.
I fear my arguments are way stronger than yours, sorry. Please make it easier to implement data structures in Rust.
It was indeed the SPARK dialect I am referring to.
I find the Ada community difficult to navigate, the existence of multiple dialects does not make it easier. Please do correct me if I am wrong, and I apologize for any mistakes that I might have made.
If it is not the case that the SPARK language or its proprietary compiler is ahead of what is available publicly, why does this page say that pattern matching is in production:
While as far as I can tell, it is not part of normal, not-SPARK Ada, and either is not available in open source compilers, or might require enabling an extension?
On doubly linked lists: Sorry, but to implement a doubly linked list in Rust well, you have to go through trials and tribulations. A whole book was written about an epic of implementing doubly linked lists in Rust: https://rust-unofficial.github.io/too-many-lists/ . And if all that is required for a data structure as simple as a doubly linked list, what will then be required for some of the more complex data structures?