The average Rust rewrite (of GPL projects) very often sets the license to MIT/BSD which is slightly exasperating. Other than that I'm indifferent to it.

Rust/js/python are the mill for programmers. They make the programmers work output increase but are being used by capital along with a bunch of other technologies to change the structure of technology and society in a way that’s good for capital and “good” for the people who don’t write software but harms those who do.

Divorced from the marketplace, rust people are generally just annoying and unwilling to accept being beholden to any larger project they want to “contribute” to. Theres a bunch of reasons for this, it’s not like people with the wrong skull shape choose rust or js at some pivotal point in their brains development and go on to behave in the wrong way because they’re incapable of anything else.

On the one hand they’re taught both that these languages are acceptable and valid to work in (which is true) and that a phenomenal way to pad one’s resume is to have worked on a bunch of open source stuff (which was once true) so now when they show up with a bunch of commits that the rest of the project doesn’t understand or have time to learn a whole new language in order to understand and get told to fuck off until someone has the time to deal with them it’s both an attack on their skills and abilities and on their future prospects.

Anyway the structure of how big maintainers of open source projects are expected to be compensated is changing and the old maintainers material interests are aligned against the new contributors material interests and they don’t have a shared labor to bind them let alone some trade organization and the new programmers are literally under socialized and have spent sixteen years without any arts or literature or history education but I’m tired of typing you read capital volume 3 I’m sure it’s clear.

Taking communist to mean materialist:

Rust is CPP but RAII memory model is enforced by the compiler and there is no C subset (just foreign function interface). It became popular because it basically absorbed a lot of saavy high level language constructs into something that could compile to machine code rather than needing a runtime on the system. In the same vein it became very popular because the tooling was all first party (linting, package management, static analysis).

The compiler requires LLVM (which is complicated on some platforms), and there are no shared libraries so every rust program is statically compiled with hundreds of libraries and so compilation takes much longer. There is gccrs which is an effort to port the language to GCC.

Now my personal opinion TM

I dislike rusts large dependency tree for even trivial programs and its npmification. The lack of ABI and reliance on static compilation is also a deal breaker for me.

But also I feel like rust programs generally tend to be of higher quality and they actually are great at porting and claiming what they preach. Rust basically disproved Javas insistence on a virtual machine runtime and showed that compiling to machine code was still always possible.

I just wish everyone used lisp instead.

Some people say its "safe" and then others dispute that.

It's not safe. It just makes it easier to write safe code. Important difference. Just like when people claim you "can't have a memory leak in a garbage-collected language", they are also full of shit; all you have to do is keep a reference to something you never plan to use again, and you have as bad of a memory leak as in any environment where you can forget to call free/delete.

I'm also using "easier" here with mild sarcasm. Sometimes it's difficult to get the constructs right in Rust so that shit will compile. Once you do, it's less likely you'll do stuff like leak memory than if you get a program in another language to compile. So "easier" is really more like shorthand for "somewhat harder, most of the time, to let your brain worms escape to the runtime stage" (i.e. production).

Is rust like some sort of neoliberal intervention?

No it's just the same annoying people that bandwagoned Golang back in the 2010's now are bandwagoning Rust. There's just a group of people that chase trends and are insufferable.

But what is the communist line on rust

Honestly I hope there isn't one. It doesn't really make sense to me to have a political stance weigh in on a programming language.

I'm not sure why it's pushed so hard other than I suspect the compiler is compromised or something by some alphabet agency.

If that's not it, I'm about to get real curmudgeonly. People tout it being "safe by design" and "better than c" because of memory safety being built in, etc.

I'm no rust expert, though I'm arguably a (embedded at least) c expert, which biases me to some extent at least.

My take is that for situations where memory safety was already critical, my understanding is that rust mechanisms would have to be bypassed anyway and the safety of C is ensured by processes proven over decades...

So basically it feels like the CISA people trying to push "modern languages with modern safety" either because they don't understand how we actually do things or because they want us to use it for another reason... Both of which are equally believable to me.