D enters Tiobe top 20

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

On Wednesday, 6 November 2019 at 11:43:30 UTC, IGotD- wrote:
> I'm trying to wrap my head around that they created a language 
> that cannot support simple, common and fundamental algorithms 
> used for more than a half of a century. The designers of Rust 
> should have known better.

Depends on what you think Rust safe-mode is. If you view it as 
high level language then that is OK as it can be done as an ADT. 
That means you have to create ADTs outside the safe language.

If writing such ADTs are not possible in Rust, then that would be 
more of a meta-programming deficiency than a type system 
deficiency (or both).

Reference counting and garbage collection are not alternatives, 
in the general case... that is way too slow... There are no safe 
alternatives to Rust's model, in the general case, if you want to 
allow arbitrary optimizations. Although you can do it in Rusts 
model with node-ids and indexes, but that is only efficient if 
you know the upper bound of the number of nodes.

So, while Rust's model isn't perfect, there are no known 
competitive alternative models that work for graphs on the heap 
either!

It is waaay to early to judge Rust, they have not hit the end of 
the road yet.  We'll have to wait and see what their 
meta-programming ADT  and type-system story evolves into.