There are several things I disagree with in this article, although I see where the author is coming from. I will never be onboard with "I’ll take my segfaults and buffer overflows.", and I fundamentally disagree about concurrency. I also think that cargo is fantastic, and a lack of standard build tools is one thing that holds rust's predecessors back.

However, a majority of the authors points can be boiled down to "C is more mature", which doesn't tell us much about the long-term viability and value of these languages. For example, in the author's metric of stability and complexity, they use C99 as the baseline, but C99 is the state of a language that had already had almost 3 decades of development, whereas Rust has been stable for less than a decade. Talking about superior portability, stability, and even spec, implementations, and ABI is in some real sense just saying "C is older".

That's not to say those things aren't valuable, but rather they aren't immutable characteristics of either language. And given that safety is playing an ever more important role in software, especially systems software, I think Rust will catch up in all the ways that are meaningful for real projects more quickly than most of us realize. I certainly don't think it's going anywhere anytime soon.

Rust's 1.0 release (i.e. the date on which the language received any sort of stability guarantee) was in 2015, and this article was written in 2019. Measuring the pace of feature development of a four-year-old language by its release notes, and comparing against a 50-year-old language by counting bullet points in Wikipedia articles, is absolutely ridiculous.

Yes, younger languages adopt features more quickly, and Rust was stabilized in a "minimal viable product" state, with many planned features not yet ready for stabilization. So of course the pace of new features in Rust is high compared to older languages. But Wikipedia articles are in no way comparable to release notes as a measure of feature adoption.

I think C is faster, more powerful, and more elegant.

"More elegant" is a matter of opinion. But "faster" and "more powerful" should be measurable in some way. I'm not aware of any evidence that C is "faster" than Rust, and in fact this would be extremely surprising since they can both be optimized with LLVM, and several of the features Rust has that C doesn't, such as generics and ubiquitous strict aliasing, tend to improve performance.

"Powerful" can mean many things, but the most useful meaning I've encountered is essentially "flexibility of application" : that is, a more powerful language can be used in more niches, such as obscure embedded hardware platforms. It's really hard to compete with C in this regard, but that's largely a matter of momentum and historical lock-in: hardware vendors support C because it's currently the lowest common denominator for all hardware and software. There's nothing about Rust the language that makes it inappropriate for hardware vendors to support at a low level. Additionally, GCC is probably the toolchain with the broadest hardware support (even hardware vendors that use a bespoke compiler often do so by forking GCC), and Rust currently has two projects (mrustc and gccrs) working to provide a way to use GCC with Rust. So even the advantage C has in terms of hardware support is narrowing.

But note that there are also niches for which C is widely considered less appropriate than Rust! The most obvious example is probably use in a front-end web application. Yes, C should in theory be usable on the front-end using emscripten, but Rust has had decent support for compiling to WebAssembly almost as long as it's been stabilized.

A Rust program written last year already looks outdated, whereas a C program written ten years ago has pretty good odds of being just fine. Systems programmers don’t want shiny things - we just want things that work.

So if that is all you want, who cares if there are some new features? They absolutely not make it look outdated. If they are crucial you want to implement them in any case.

rewriting an entire program from scratch is always going to introduce more bugs than maintaining the C program ever would. I don’t care what language you rewrite it in.

This also seems odd. If the program changed a lot, a lot had to be frankensteined into it. Maintaining that is a fucking mess with tons of bugs. Rewriting can make it so much easier.

Safety. Yes, Rust is more safe. I don’t really care.

I think this is honestly the crux of Drew's argument.

If a compiler is to prove safety of a program in a language with low level memory management, then there is a lot of inherent complexity. Drew doesn't like complexity, therefore Drew doesn't like safety.

Why are you posting a 5 year old blog post? Me thinks it's to stir the pot.

C is many things, but elegant really isn't one of them.

C has always been part of the "worse is better"/New Jersey school of thinking. The ultimate goal is simplicity. Particularly simplicity of language implementation, even if that makes programs written in that language more complex or error prone. It's historically been a very successful approach.

Rust, on the other hand, is part of "The Right Thing"/MIT approach. Simplicity is good, but it's more important to be correct and complete even if it complicates things a bit.

I don't really think of void* and ubiquitous nulls, for example, as the hallmark of elegance, but as pretty simple, kludgey solutions.

Rust, on the other hand, brings a lot of really elegant solutions from ML- family languages to a systems language. So you get algebraic data types, pattern matching, non-nullable references by default, closures, typeclasses, expression-oriented syntax, etc.

This is an old post and a lot has changed since then. Many of the points in that article are no longer true. Drew himself started a language - hare, for which he is considering Rust style borrow checker to ensure safety. It's a bit wrong to bash anything based on a half a decade old opinion.

Oh another Rust vs C discussion.

I bet the comparisons totally won't be controversial on both sides at all. That never happens.

This is an opinion and conclusion I completely expected to see from Drew. He's carrying the torch for the old guard but damn if it's not an uphill battle these days.

Did you try to add an image and remove the URL to the article im the process?

I'm a big fan of Go. I've done nothing in Rust. It's got some feature that I've found enticing, but it seems like it has a lot of downsides as well.