zlacker

What you've written at the end there is a critique of Rust in 2012, pointing out that it's not a stable language, which, it isn't, as reflected in its versioning, in 2012.

But a few years later, in 2015, Rust 1.0 shipped. So the stability really firms up from there.

I happen to have in front of me the first commit of the first modestly sized piece of software I wrote in Rust in April 2021. Which compiles today just fine and works exactly as it did when it was written, on this brand new Rust toolchain.

>>tialar+(OP)
I am aware that Rust 1.0 shipped. I am also aware that every year breaking changes in the language occur. It is 2025, it should not have taken this long to "settle down."

>>OhMead+s74
What are you claiming constitutes a "breaking change in the language" ?

Sibling comments talk about a 2024 stdlib change which broke some people because they had written code which depends upon an inference and with a new enough stdlib that inference is now ambiguous so the compiler requires that you disambiguate or your code doesn't compile with the newer library.

So, that's not a breaking change in the language. It's annoying, and ideally shouldn't have happened, but in contrast the two languages you praised (C and C++) have in the last ten years made real breaking changes to their actual language and as expected the same people who insist Rust isn't "stable" shrug off the extra work from that as No Big Deal.

As someone who wrote C for decades and now writes Rust instead it's very striking how much worse the "bit rot" is in reality for C.