Rust is a disappointment

Summary

I used to call myself a Rust hater, but really I was doing it just to compensate for the perceivable fanboyism e.g. Rust tops on stackoverflow surveys as most-loved language. There are many reasons to hate C++, and I hate C++ too. Lots of people were waiting for a better programming language, but got Rust instead. There are several core problems with Rust: Its compilation is slow. I mean SLOW. Slower than C++. I know over years Rust became several times faster, but objectively we need it to be two orders of magnitude faster, not just two times. It’s complex. Just as complex as C++. But C++ had legacy and Rust had not. The complexity of forcing your way through the jungle of Arc<Mutex<Box<T>>> on every single step directly impacts the quality of the logic being implemented i.e. you can’t see the forest for the trees. Once again, C++ has the same problem, so what’s the point of the language switch in the end? Memory safety is not that sacred. In fact, for many applications malfunctioning is better than crashing — particulary in the embedded world where Rust wants to be present. You cannot get 99.999% reliability with Rust — it crashes all the time. When handling lots of mutable shared state (GUI, DB, stateful services, OS/hardware), the performance of native Rust memory model is subpar, and non-native unsafes just leave you with slow compilation, high complexity, and no memory safety in the end — which makes Rust practically meaningless for heavy mutable state jobs. C++ actually sucks There is no doubt about it. Undefined behavior (UB) is a fundamental aspec of the language, you don’t simply encounter UB — the whole language is built on UB. You do array indexing and you immediately encounter UB because the language just does not check out of bound access. I want to emphasize that lots of UB-s are not even justified by performance matters — it’s an outright sloppy design of C carried over and amplified in C++. I can go all day long about how C++ sucks: implicit type co...