Daily downloads in decline

[Dicebot via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 17:04:56 UTC, Dennis Ritchie wrote:
> On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 11:36:56 UTC, Bruno Medeiros 
> wrote:
>> Thanks! (it already has more likes/stars in Github than DDT, 
>> even though it's nowhere near as feature full :S )
>
> It seems to me that many still do not understand what the Rust 
> :) Many have not seen Lisp, so they think that Rust is 
> something innovative. At least from the syndrome of angle 
> brackets and other syntactic shaluhi its developers are not 
> disposed of, but only made matters worse. This language is not 
> better than the same C++.

Sorry, but this sounds like extremely uneducated opinion.

Rust has a very clearly defined set of values and goals. It is 
designed for large scale projects that need to combine high 
performance with maintainability and does that at cost of 
learning curve and rapid prototyping. Very strict and punishing 
compiler (with a pedantic and complicated type system) ensures 
that it is much harder to make accidental subtle mistakes. Even 
generics are completely type-checked (via traits).

(yes, I did spend quite some time playing with it)

There are few important features missing compared to D, i.e. 
static reflection and metaprogramming can only be done via AST 
macros. But primarily the main issue I see is that there is no 
reason to pick Rust for a project with less than 50 KLOC unless 
you want to learn. Productivity feels very low.

Still, saying that it is "same C++" is absolutely missing the 
point.