It being updated frequently just shows it’s being regularly maintained and improved.
C# has many of the same security and safety advantages that Rust does given they are languages with memory management and other safety features built-in.
Rust has exactly the same problems with depreciation as many Frameworks rely on experimental features which are subject to change.
Edit: plus if you have ever used Rust it’s a pain to learn and use compared to C#. C# is so similar to Java and so much easier than C++ that it’s really not much of a jump for programmers new to the language.
Learning curve is steep in the beginning, I agree (I wouldn’t argue painful though, maybe if you have to unlearn bad practices, like interior mutability though etc.).
But I think it pays off after some time. I’m now faster in Rust than in C# with similar experience, and the quality of the code is definitely higher as well (which can be credited to the strict kinda opinionated design of Rust IMO).
It composes really well, better than most (non-functional) popular languages. I think this is probably the Sell for Rust, as it additionally works remarkably well over the entire stack (kernel -> frontend) (in each abstraction level might be better/easier to use languages to be fair though).
What’s interior mutability and why do you think it’s bad?
I might have another try at rust some time in the future. I think I tried it in a bad situation having to use it for a web microsevices project when I had limited knowledge of the language. If it had been another language I probably would have been able to pick it up in the time frame required. Using it did cost me in terms of grades, and it was a poor decision to use that language at that time.
The main things I struggled with were all the borrow checking and asynchronous stuff, as well as the lifetimes concept. I still don’t understand how you are meant to specify object lifetimes. In C you assign and free things manually, in Java and Python it’s done mostly automatically, in C++ you choose manual or automatic when it’s assigned. In Rust it seems it’s automatic until the compiler can’t figure it out and then it becomes manual, which is frankly bizarre.
Rust has exactly the same problems with depreciation as many Frameworks rely on experimental features which are subject to change.
Rust has actually quite a good record with depreciation and backwards-compatibilty etc. They are changing the language in non-backwards compatible way over editions, but the changes are mostly very manageable.
But to not end up being another C++ (syntax-wise it’s a disaster IMHO), a few non-backwards-compatible changes every few years are the way to go, when it’s manageable.
.net is not secure, it’s so far from secure it’s a joke. 503 security patches this year alone, that includes one for each windows version but you get the point.
Do you not think Rust also has security flaws? At least Microsoft patch theirs.
There are of course security flaws, we’re humans after all. Unless the compiler and the language can be proven mathematically correct at least.
But as described above, in practice the security flaws are easier to isolate in Rust compared to C# IME. The current story of security flaws in Rust is quite good so far.
