lightweight can mean a variety different things
- not introducing unnecessary overhead at runtime [x]
- having a minimal standard library so if something turns out to have been a bad idea ten years from now, there'll be no burden of maintenance [x]
- having a compiler that fits on a floppy disk [ ]
- having software run fast because the compiler was smart and complex enough to make optimizations on high-level code [x]
i checked those that apply to rust.
I see a lot of hate, but no real arguments against the language.. I'm confused. I've been using Rust full time for work in the last year and it's been a blast. Very much enjoying it and never have much trouble except for the occasional moron crate maintainer that makes a breaking change in a minor version update so we have to solve the mess.
@caseyp @feld @lanodan
Fosstodon is an English speaking Mastodon instance that is open to anyone who is interested in technology; particularly free & open source software.