Rust Survey 2021 Results

https://blog.rust-lang.org/2022/02/15/Rust-Survey-2021.html

by surfingninja • 4 years ago

166 133 4 years ago

I found this surprising... 59% of respondents sounds huge!

"Rust can now safely be classified as a language used by people in professional settings. Of those respondents using Rust, 59% use it at least occasionally at work with 23% using Rust for the majority of their coding. This is a large increase over last year where only 42% of respondents used Rust at work."

adgjlsfhk13• 4 years ago

I don't think this is entirely surprising. Rust isn't many people's first language. People who learn it, mostly do because they have become fed up with the unreliability (typically of C). This creates a bias towards people who are more experienced and have more organizational power. Also, language surveys tend to be biased towards power users which can shift the sample significantly. For example, the Julia survey from 2021 only had 25% Windows users, while Julia binaries are something like 70% windows.

psfried• 4 years ago

That's an interesting statistic about Julia. Makes me curious what the stats would be for Rust.

eminence32• 4 years ago

Your comment about people with "more organizational power" may be an accurate reflection of things, but I don't think it's necessary to explain this increase in people using rust at work. It could be that more and more people are using rust for small ad-hoc scripts, which might have been written in python or java before. These small things might not require any organizational approval, but people might be more comfortable now using rust (either because their own skills in the language have improved, or because they feel more comfortable justifying the use of rust, even if they don't need to).

zozbot23412• 4 years ago

Rust isn't many people's first language.

Has anyone actually tried to teach/learn Rust as a first programming language? People did it with C++ (and even C) at some point, is Rust that much more problematic? (And the attempt might even inform new convenience features: the proc macro system gives Rust a lot of inherent flexibility there.)

spenczar5• 4 years ago

I write a bit of Rust, but not for work, and I never heard about this survey. I think that's probably common - the more Rust you write, the more likely it is that you fill out the survey, so the sample is probably very biased towards people who work with it a lot (ie, professionally).

Or - you could describe that as biased, at least. Alternatively, maybe the intent of these language surveys is exactly to find out what committed power-users think. Either way, interpreting results from language surveys is tricky business.

apendleton• 4 years ago

I think it's true that surveys like this will skew towards more serious/dedicated practitioners, but in addition to professionals, the Rust community has also at various times attracted people who were excited about bleeding-edge things, or PLT/type-theory people, etc., and I think this survey probably does show a shift in the user base towards work-a-day users and away from these other groups.

(Or more succinctly: the absolute numbers are probably meaningless, but the trends are maybe worth watching.)

estebank5• 4 years ago

The self-selection bias effect is why the survey on isolation is not enough to derive meaning on its own. But, looking at the trends over time as the yearly survey is analyzed and compared with the previous ones is useful.

FullyFunctional• 4 years ago

I'm definitely in the camp that worry about the feature/complexity creep. I saw it with Haskell. Haskell 98 is a pretty nice and simple language. GHC Haskell is a monster. This matters when you try to read other people code and the overuse of experimental cool new features becomes a major burden for comprehension.

Rust is already a very large language and for intrinsic reasons pile on a load more complexity than Haskell (just look at the iterators).

I write this as a fan and advocate of Rust.

ekidd• 4 years ago

I feel like the pace of Rust language evolution slowed down significantly after the 2018 edition and the work on async shortly thereafter. Most of the more recent language changes feel like pretty minor ergonomic improvements, things which always should have worked. I suppose we got const functions (can be evaluated at compile time), and const generics (allow you define fixed-length vectors for size N). But those features are well established in other languages and they don't interact much with anything else. And I'm sure I'm forgetting a few things, but that's sort of my point—subjectively, not a lot has changed for me recently.

What I have seen is a lot of good work in the larger ecosystem. And the tooling continues to improve.

zozbot23412• 4 years ago

No worries, Rust has a looong way to go before they reach C++ levels. And the editions system even makes it feasible to pursue some ex-post simplification, though that requires a number of years to complete and cross-linking across editions must be preserved regardless.

stjohnswarts• 4 years ago

Alas I had fun with rust and made some small apps but as I got deeper I just got scared off by the learning curve. I'm kind of over the hump with c++, javascript and python and I just couldn't do it again. Maybe I will revisit in a few years if it actually slows down.

pie_flavor3• 4 years ago

The language evolution speed has nothing whatsoever to do with the learning curve - there's like two major features a year, one of which is only for advanced users. The rolling release cycle just means the tiny incremental improvements arrive sooner. The learning curve has been in place since 1.0 and it only gets harder the more times you give up.

anyfoo3• 4 years ago

The problem with that is in large parts that Haskell 98 is very outdated, and so relatively basic and absolutely useful extensions are in the same pot as all the experimental stuff.

Haskell Prime, essentially the Haskell 98 successor, is supposed to fix that. The first thing I do in almost any Haskell project is enable a bunch of extensions that I consider absolutely essential[1]. Most or all of those should likely be incorporated into the new standard, and then the truly experimental stuff stands out as experimental again.

Unfortunately it seems that Haskell Prime efforts have slowed down, despite a very active Haskell community in total. I have not looked into details there, though.

[1] For example ScopedTypeVariables, where it's hard to imagine for me at least why this would not be the default.

tome• 4 years ago

I think the GHC2021 group of blessed extensions provides what you want.

https://ghc.gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/doc/users_guide/exts/cont...

foldr2• 4 years ago

Out of curiosity, why do you find ScopedTypeVariables essential? I've written a fair amount of Haskell code and never once needed it.

chrismorgan3• 4 years ago

Rust is necessarily a comparatively large language, but I’m content that at present it’s not getting noticeably worse: additions are mostly filling things that could be expected but are missing, plus some focusing on improving ergonomics.

Take generic associated types, for example: they’re a major new feature… but are conceptually just removing a potentially surprising limitation.

Or const generics: they really are a major new feature, but in general the code that can use them was a good deal more complex and inconsistent before.

You’d have a stronger argument about complexity creep on async—there was lots of demand for it, but it’s not clear that the design that is now frozen was in fact ideal.

masklinn3• 4 years ago

One of the annoying things though is lots of the fills are rather inelegant extensions of APIs. They’re not nonsensical, and TBH I don’t really have a solution, but e.g. allocators support (between custom allocators and faillible allocations) ultimately doubles the size of Vec, or near enough. This makes going through the API a major chore.

But maybe this would be better fixed through Rustdoc, by supporting topics / sections, and being able to “globally” set which standard topics you’re interested in e.g. I don’t do embedded so generally unsafe and explicit allocations I’m uninterested in, that stuff could be folded away / hidden in both the sidebar & main text.

dnsco• 4 years ago

GHC seems to be more of a platform for crafting your own language than rust. Yes, rust nightly has experimental features that can enabled, but they seem to have gone through more vetting and design, whereas in GHC the features seem to be much more exploratory, or more explicitly, research oriented. It seems as though every contemporary haskell program is written in a different language, though rust at least, always has stable, which seems a much more sensible default than GHC's.

masklinn3• 4 years ago

GHC seems to be more of a platform for crafting your own language than rust.

It’s always been that tho, one of the motivations behind Haskell was to have a unified basis for FP language research: at the time (late 80s) there were a dozen half-assed half-implemented languages in the space, and the main and most stable platform (Miranda) was proprietary software.

dgellow6• 4 years ago

I often see people complaining how bloated or large the language is, but I never see specifics. As someone who started learning and using Rust at the beginning of this year I was surprised to find out how simple the language is given its reputation on forums. What makes you feel the language is becoming too large, where is the feature creep, and where is the complexity you're talking about? Are you talking about the stdlib or language features?

philosopher1234• 4 years ago

Complexity is a death by a thousand cuts issue. I suspect most people complaining are going to have a hard time enumerating the many small sources of complexity they encountered.

CJefferson2• 4 years ago

Some people (including me) felt how async was added was worrying.

Adding ".await" means when I teach Rust we now need to say "x.y is member access. Unless y is 'await'. Then it's something totally different". That's the type of strange rule that C++ has, and if you gather enough of them, languages become very hard to teach.

However, async seems to be the only big language feature which effected many things which has been added.

j-pb2• 4 years ago

Rust doesn't reuse concepts well. The different capabilities and subsystems are all build from disjoint building blocks, which you could call modular in a sense, but it doesn't make them easy to use, learn, or joyful.

The module system, the macro system(s), the core language, the borrow checker. It's all different micro-languages without a shared foundation.

I think it's easier to when you compare Rust to simpler languages like Carp or Zig.

Carp due to its homoiconicity and lisp heritage allows you to write macros in regular old Carp. Zig doesn't really have Macros, but comptime (compile time) code evaluation, which results in something with a lot of the benefits of a macro system without the drawback of unreadable DSLs, because it too is plain old Zig annotated with `comptime`. Zigs module system is build on Struct name-spacing, so if you know Structs, you know the module system. Its build system is also build on Zig code.

My guess is that Rusts origins are partially to be blamed for this, the web is build the same way, disjoint standards that are developed by different groups of people. It's just that just like the web, the sum of the parts is less elegant and usable than each constituent.

pjmlp9• 4 years ago

I get the same feeling, Rust seems to be going down the path of "#[feature]" collection.

jamil7• 4 years ago

It shares that as well as horrendous compile times with Swift.

kibwen5• 4 years ago

Rust feature flags aren't the same as Haskell feature flags. In Haskell you design your own programming language by selecting which extensions to enable. In Rust, feature flags only exist on the unstable nightly compiler and either get folded into the language proper or deprecated and dropped entirely. It's not a combinatorial explosion of interacting extensions, it's a single base for everyone that grows over time.

shirogane86x• 4 years ago

To be honest, and maybe I'm just an outlier... As someone who uses Haskell for most of my personal stuff (sadly, not for work), I really don't mind the complexity. Haskell98 is... nice, at best, but it lacks a lot for me to be truly pleasant. GHC Haskell with extensions however I find a pleasure to use, and I've always felt like the complexity was well placed, right where I wanted it or needed it. Rust is also nice, but for me personally the extra features are just making it better, not worse.

Animats2• 4 years ago

The percentage of people using Rust continues to rise.

How was the sample selected?

Epskampie• 4 years ago

Why, selfselected of course! How surprising that people who still chose to fill out a rust survey in 2021 increasingly use rust! ;-)

On topic, i’d like to try out rust, but can’t find good cause in my daily webdev needs.

Animats2• 4 years ago

Although I write mostly in Rust, when I have to do some web server side work, I use Go. Go was designed at Google for their server-side applications, and it's well-suited to that. All the expected libraries have seen very heavy use and are unlikely to have unexpected problems. Goroutines handle the job of both async and threads, simplifying concurrency. Rust is overkill for such work.

Rust is for complicated problems where both performance and safety matter. Web browsers. Databases. Operating systems. Industrial control. I'm writing a client for a virtual world in Rust. It's much easier to do complex concurrency in Rust than in C++.

Use the right tool for the job.

LAC-Tech3• 4 years ago

I have some time between contracts and I've found myself learning rust.

Pros:

- Sum types. I am an OO apologist, but trying to use classes in C++ is an exercise in frustration. Sum types map very well to union types and are a better fit for systems programming.

- Unit tests built right into the language - it seems like a small thing but it's a hassle in most languages to choose a library, set it up etc.

- The above, combined with cargo-watch [0]. With the right flags, you hit save, and your tests all run. It's a god-send.

- Ecosystem is pretty big. I can find most things I need.

- Discord channel is nice. I was put off a bit by the Rust Evangelism Strikeforce back in the day, but so far everyone is pretty chill.

- Options & Results in the standard library. All languages should have this

Cons:

- I find it hard to transfer knowledge of C to rust, because they use different terminology.

- Docs can be confusing to read because every method on collections like `map` or `filter` returns its own Trait. People have explained why this is to me a couple of times but I still haven't gotten it through my head.

- You still have to think about memory and pointers. Not always a bad thing, but it is an extra dimension when solving a problem.

Overall I'm powering through. I'm hoping to get to a point where Rust is an obvious choice for anything that involves finer control of memory.

[0] https://github.com/watchexec/cargo-watch

berkut• 4 years ago

As someone with 20 years of C++ experience, in industries from everything from real-time systems through to low-level HPC graphics on CPU/GPU (currently in VFX), I really don't understand the hatred for OO programming, and I must be either missing something, or being lucky with the codebases I'm working on...

It's a tool for encapsulation: you can get into trouble with it, but I'd argue the same is possible with many things - it's how well you use it. You can easily use state composition in C++ if you want, and generally (multiple inheritance can cause issues in some cases) you can use interface classes as well.

And as someone who's been learning Rust for the past 6+ months, I've found that of the three new projects I started which I started in Rust instead of C++/Python over the past 4 months, Composition actually worked quite less well (it's quite verbose due to all the plumbing needed to connect things up) than if I could have used OO interitance in many situations where I wanted specialisation - i.e. hierarchy behaviour traits that had both common shared state and functionality AND specialised state and functionality. Thankfully Traits can at least have default implementations - if not, things would have been a bit worse.

To be clear: there's a lot to like in Rust though.

pie_flavor3• 4 years ago

Encapsulation is just another way of saying correctly used visibility modifiers. It doesn't mean the state has to be inseparable from the behavior, and its role is semantically fulfilled in Rust by modules. And IME issues with OO feeling like the better role tend to be people attempting to solve all the problems with one feature like OO lets you do, shying away from doing it with multiple features even though they're really multiple concerns. E.g. for common behavior manipulating common state among several local structs, a macro is what you'd use.

urthor• 4 years ago

The criticism of OO is more Java and Gang of 4 related than anything.

Two things get the enterprise devs of the mid 2000s going:

Badmouthing Oracle. And complaining about refactoring someone's mess of an abstract factory.

Especially I would say since microkernels just became incredibly widespread After Docker. Encapsulation is just not as necessary as it used to be.

In C++ the whole encapsulated structs thingo works fine.

It's there for when you need it, and you don't need it when you don't.

Gang of 4-esque programming is okay when it's necessary. Sometimes you are making something with a 100 different buttons and you just gotta do it that way.

However, for every project that needs all those factories and such, there's probably 5-10 where straight procedural/functional programming is perfectly fine.

Or in the case of many data oriented applications, or when formal verification is needed, probably just straight better.

Just do your abstraction with subroutine signatures and scope.

LAC-Tech3• 4 years ago

I wasn't criticising OO. I was talking about how much of a square peg in a round hole it felt - for me - to do OO in C++.

raverbashing2• 4 years ago

As someone with 20 years of C++ experience... I really don't understand the hatred for OO programming

Well, where should I begin:

    std::cout << "Hello world";

Is just a nice way of doing things...

As the other commenter said, it's not so much OO, but more GoF and how the 2000's OO went.

Please tell me why any basic library adds 3 or 4 levels of inheritance just to do something basic like vector or array. "Oh but this is to make things more generic" and yet nobody uses all that generic stuff. STL is often replaced by more "serious" users.

C++ (and Java) are 2nd systems syndrome gone to 11

I've just taken a look at the Vector implementation at my current system and it's an exercise in frustration. Meanwhile I can understand most of this https://doc.rust-lang.org/src/alloc/vec/mod.rs.html#400

zozbot23412• 4 years ago

The 'hate' is reserved for implementation inheritance, which has its well-known drawbacks (research the "fragile base class problem") - basically, it introduces complex long-range coupling throughout inheritance hierarchies that makes it way too hard, or even impossible, to evolve code over time. Everything else is very much doable in Rust.

ldiracdelta3• 4 years ago

One of the pieces of OO _inheritance_ I deeply miss in Rust is the ability to subclass a library class, override *one* function, and retain all the other functionality. Yesterday, I needed to tweak the behavior of one function on actix-identity's cookie and my option seemed to be to wrapper the original object and write the same interface for the entire object, passing through every function except the one I wanted to override. Am I a sinner for wanting inheritance yesterday? Probably, but I had to write so much boilerplate to achieve my tiny override.

pie_flavor3• 4 years ago

They return their own type, all of which implement a common trait, because traits are not types, and there's two options for representing 'any type that implements this trait', one of which can't be returned without allocating it (dyn), and the other of which can't be used in trait methods (impl). As a (frankly minimal in my opinion) effort to make this less weird to look at, the docs now have a (nearly invisible) 'notable traits' hoverable, which tells you what types implement Iterator and that anything other than them implementing Iterator is not very important.

tialaramex2• 4 years ago

every method on collections like `map` or `filter`

I think you're remembering the various iterator adaptors, but they aren't methods on collections, they work on Iterators as their name implies. Somebody else explained why these methods can't all just return "Iterator" (that isn't a type) but just thought I'd mention you won't find map and filter in Rust's Vec or HashMap types, those methods live in the Iterator trait.

pornel5• 4 years ago

`iterator.map(…)` must return a new wrapper type, because it needs to store the closure somewhere, so it returns

    struct Map { closure, original_iterator }

This fact could have been hidden by making these methods return `impl Iterator`, but it would be strictly less useful/performant in case you needed to store the iterator somewhere, because then you couldn't name the actual type, and would need to work with an abstract one.

But I do agree that the way documentation presents traits and their implementations can be overwhelming, especially the Iterator which is a pretty large trait.

sanxiyn3• 4 years ago

Re: knowledge transfer. Why do you expect your C knowledge to transfer to Rust? Let me tell you clearly: it doesn't. It's not because Rust uses different terminology. Rather, Rust uses different terminology because underlying concept is different, so using same terminology would only lead to confusion.

I found this to be the case: Rust is equally hard to learn, for C programmers and for Java programmers. But C programmers get frustrated more, because while Java programmers don't expect their knowledge to transfer, C programmers have unrealistic and unjustified expectation of knowledge transfer. Actual learning curve is same, just expectations differ.

I wrote about this in 2016: https://sanxiyn.blogspot.com/2016/06/problem-in-rust-adoptio....

LAC-Tech3• 4 years ago

I expected (or should I say hoped) C knowledge would transfer because - that's my main point of reference for a programming language where you care about memory.

I don't think there's anything particularly unusual about it - were I to seriously learn haskell, I'd hope whatever knowledge I had of Ocaml would put me in a good position.

Your blog was spot on - with the caveat that people who know C++ can easily "learn" stuff like Java and C# but tend to write very C++ flavoured Java and C#.

boberoni• 4 years ago

I'm curious about the methodology of this survey. The first thing I think about when reading survey results is the possibility of selection bias.

dgb234• 4 years ago

Ah yes these things are not scientific studies. Just read them as tech culture with diagrams and numbers.

danielscrubs• 4 years ago

How's the compiler speed? I've been so burnt out on hobby programming on SwiftUI because of the horrendous long compilation times.

Makes me long for some Pascal. :)

zozbot23412• 4 years ago

It depends on what you're doing. Rust is not uniformly slow to compile, the slowness is associated to a few specific features like generics and macros. (Good generic code should delegate to a less-generic implementation as early as possible. Hopefully full "const" generics will soon make this feasible in more cases.)

Tobu• 4 years ago

The compiler itself is fine and its performance well managed, with weekly perf triage and efforts driven by profiling[1], but because adding dependencies is effortless and vetting them isn't, dependency trees tend to get large if not careful. In particular, widely used proc-macros (code transformations pulled by popular packages like serde, clap, tokio…) add very heavy dependencies (like syn) to the critical path. As a consequence, downloading and installing a tool from source is often a poor experience.

As far as development experience, cargo clippy / cargo check / rust-analyzer give you the feedback you need without involving codegen (except for any proc-macros in your dependency tree), and incremental compilation makes codegen faster after the first build. Work is also ongoing[2] to make debug-quality codegen faster.

Here is a quality article on the art of keeping a Rust project fast to build: https://matklad.github.io/2021/09/04/fast-rust-builds.html

The overall series on organizing a large project is worth reading as well: https://matklad.github.io/2021/09/05/Rust100k.html

[1] https://nnethercote.github.io/2021/11/12/the-rust-compiler-h...

[2] https://bjorn3.github.io/

edflsafoiewq• 4 years ago

IMO the other responses downplay it. Compile times are not good.

cryptojournal• 4 years ago

Lovely Survey :)

zerr• 4 years ago

Pity that it is hard to find Rust jobs outside blockchain.

pornel5• 4 years ago

If you want more data, I've compiled statistics from crates.io:

https://lib.rs/stats

dgb234• 4 years ago

Rust is a terribly slow language to write in, especially if you’re trying to fight it in any way - because you‘ll lose.

It’s verbose and quite ugly as it tries to appeal to C family programmers while being expression and pattern based.

When trying to resolve ownership issues with closures the first time, you‘ll be doubting whether Rust is in fact a language or just a sick elaborate joke that tries to mock you for even considering to use it.

But with every concept learned you feel accomplished and start to develop Stockholm syndrome. The Rust compiler beats you to pieces and puts you together again.

As a new programmer, you rise from the ashes of your past inadequacies and delusions:

„Rust is actually a pretty productive language.“

On a more serious note: there is a book „Programming Rust“ and likely others that help with a structured introduction to the language, which I feel is a warranted approach, especially if the memory management concepts seem alien to you.

axiosgunnar• 4 years ago

When trying to resolve ownership issues

aka fix provably buggy code before it makes it to production?

dgb234• 4 years ago

I was trying to joke about the experience of learning the language rather than making an educated assessment of it.

blurker2• 4 years ago

I feel like some others aren't seeing the humour in your comment. Or maybe I'm just weird. Orr maybe I'm new enough to Rust still that I don't get offended. Anyways, you got a laugh from me at least!

dgb234• 4 years ago

Yeah! It’s a language that’s highly praised for good reason. But it’s also quite challenging to grasp some of the unique concepts to a degree where humor is the only viable self defense!

dgellow6• 4 years ago

That's not covered by the survey but I'm wondering how much of Rust usage is driven by crypto-currency projects. I'm personally completely convinced by the Rust language and the ecosystem, and decided to bet on it as my main tool for the next decade or so, but I'm also a bit worried that a lot of the money for Rust roles comes from crypto-currency projects (an industry I'm now very sceptical of given the amount of scam/bullshit we've seen during recent years). Not sure if my worries are warranted given my personal bias. Just something I have in mind.

beingflo• 4 years ago

I fully agree, that's exactly what I'm seeing in the job market for Rust in switzerland. It's unfortunate, but I guess more traditional industries are firmly in the grip of Java etc.

nindalf2• 4 years ago

To my knowledge, most of the people working on Rust, the project, are employed full time at Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft etc. There are a few folks who benefit from sponsorship from some crypto firms but I think that’s the minority.

While it’s a legitimate concern that many jobs appear to be from the crypto industry, I wouldn’t worry too much. Whether they’re scams or not, the entire community benefits from the software they sponsor and open source.

sanxiyn3• 4 years ago

Re: blockchain sponsorship. Minority, yes, but not without weight. For example, current Rust language team leader and library team leader are sponsored by blockchain projects.

See https://medium.com/concordium/the-devx-initiative-rust-ecosy... for details.

sirwhinesalot• 4 years ago

Crypto is like the dotcom bubble. Lots of scams, lots of half finished (but well intentioned) crap, and a few projects that might survive into the future and become something useful beyond being a casino with constantly changing odds.

Rust is particularly good for crypto because 1) it is very efficient and 2) ownership semantics let you model things in a way that prevents many of the issues plaguing solidity and etherum.

There will be a crash though, and a lot of the money on Rust will evaporate, but I think this early push will ensure the language survives well into the future.

marcos100• 4 years ago

Why would it be worrying? Lack of jobs outside cryptocurrency companies? Language features focused on crypto?

anton_ai• 4 years ago

Rust is so good, I would switch from python to Rust in a moment if there was the right ecosystem for Data Science / AI stuff

blurker2• 4 years ago

The next largest concern was that the language would become too complex (33%).

I'm also in this camp, although I would go further to say that Rust is already "too complex." Or maybe not. Go has already done an excellent job of being a very simple and effective language. Rust's complexity makes it very useful for some cool stuff. Like building DSL's.

But because of its complexity, Rust is not the language I would reach for in most cases when building almost anything pretty standard, like a basic web app backend. For that, I would choose Go over Rust every time. The reason being: the cognitive load of Go is far, far lower, and that is super important for maintainability and being able to collaborate with others.

Basically, in the Venn diagram of what Rust can do and what Go can do, I'd mostly use Rust only for what it can do well and Go can't. For example, a real time system that can't have GC overhead. Or sometimes I'll choose it anyway for my hobby projects, just 'cuz I think it's cool and want to use it. But if I put on my pragmatism/business hat and want to build anything seriously, that's the way it will go.

Take that for what it's worth since I'm very new to Rust (and I quite like it actually!). Although I have a lot of experience with a lot of other languages including C/C++, Java, Go, Perl, JS/TS, Python, and more. Rust is up there as one of the more complex languages I've used. I've really noticed it on the learning curve so far. Reminds me a lot of Scala, actually.

The onboarding experience of Go vs Rust is night and day. You can legitimately go from reading "A tour of Go" to understanding most Go projects within a day (if you're already an experienced programmer). And it's not because Rust is lacking good learning resources. It has amazing docs and so many amazing free resources. I'm honestly enjoying and learning a lot about it rather quickly, I think. But it's still taking a long time and I can see I'm in for a ride and will be going "oh wtf is that" in Rust source code for a very long time!

Rust Survey 2021 Results

Related Stories