upvote
Saying this about Rust and C++ is like saying the kitchen you just built is cleaner than the old kitchen you used for 50 years. Get back to me in another few years.
reply
I agree for the comparison.

Now for Rust I don’t think it is going to change a lot. Because it is based on ML, it has the best foundations and all features are known. The question is more how much Haskell vs script/imperative do you want your language to be, and what’s the purpose of the language rather than we had the wrong paradigm and found a new better one. For Rust 99% of its features are known and most are already implemented.

Maybe things around the borrow checker, and await, but beyond that nothing as much as what C++ saw in its history. Even more when for instance you see the article from the guy doing Gleam where traits (impl) are not necessary, all you need is data and function to have the same functionality. Or how ML have been the main factor to most new languages or new features to existing languages.

The future is ML, with languages dedicated to specific use cases and niches. And also ML languages easily readable by AI.

reply
Then I will feel the same about Rust! There's nothing wrong with wanting to throw out the janky accretion every 30 years for a redesign.

After 3-4 years, sure. But eventually enough has changed it's worth redoing.

reply