RFC in Comparison between Rust, D and Go

[rsw0x via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 9 November 2015 at 15:29:44 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
> On Monday, 9 November 2015 at 14:13:45 UTC, Nordlöw wrote:
>> Yet another shallow language comparison that needs to be 
>> corrected:
>>
>> https://www.quora.com/Which-language-has-the-brightest-future-in-replacement-of-C-between-D-Go-and-Rust-And-Why/answer/Matej-%C4%BDach?srid=itC4&share=1
>
> Besides the author's obvious bias, the only thing in there that 
> is factually wrong is his statement that Rust provides the same 
> modeling power as C++ (lack of OOP). But other than that, 
> nothing really jumps out at me as being plain incorrect.

I'd argue the familiarity part of Rust. I could put a C or C++ 
programmer down in a chair and have them using Go or D in an hour 
or two, I don't think the same can be said of Rust - especially 
when you consider lifetime annotations. Which comes back to the 
"Doesn't offer clear tradeoffs" — Rust has a clear tradeoff in 
that it requires far more from the programmer, IMO.