I do not know why I al defending that guy, but the comment he is replying to specifically mentioned Android. So, he is not the one that narrowed the conversation from JVM to Android.

Also, I am sure your dingbat humour is quite hilarious. Unfortunately, it went completely over my head.

We have had Ruby for a long time already.

I know you are joking but needing to compile is probably one of the reasons “teams” are more productive in Rust.

You cannot check something into the build system unless you can build. Once Rust is compiling, you have eliminate scores of problems that may still be in equivalent C++ code.

Rust works to limit the damage one dev can do to the codebase.

Great news. Maybe in a year they will pass enough of the rest suite to be taken seriously.

I am not sure what I am excited for, Rust or the MIT license.

Like the other SVN, the author has been around forever in the Linux space. And yet his articles always come across like somebody that first discovered it a few months ago.

Somehow I find myself rankling at even his smallest editorials as well. Take this one: “Then, there’s GCC Front-End for Rust, which can be loaded by the existing rustc frontend, but benefits from GCC optimizations.” Ok, sure, as long as we do not mind losing all the LLVM optimizations. Why not just say that Rust uses LLVM today and that there is a project to allow the use of the GCC-backend as an option? Leave it to the reader to decide which ecosystem or optimizations they prefer as this article is not even about that. It is like he Googled Rust and added everything he could find to the article. I can think of a reason to use the GCC version of Rust with the kernel. If you are using GCC to compile the C parts of the kernel, you also need LLVM for Rust. A GCC based Rust would eliminate that requirement. Presumably this also allows both the C and Rust code to target the same platforms. GCC and LLVM platform support is not the same. Those would be relevant points but neither of those is about “GCC optimizations”.

That is just one example.

Basically, I find his articles to be as misleading as they are informative and that is not what I want from the technical press.

Well, they do not answer the question “what is Servo” by saying it is a web browser. They answer that it is a “rendering engine”.

But ok, you might think the obvious thing to do with a “rendering engine” is to make a browser.

I guess that is why they answer the question “what can Servo do for you?” as follows:

“Servo can be used to build embedded applications with web technologies, such as kiosk interfaces and digital signage. At present, Servo is especially suited to applications that use WebGL or WebGPU, as well as CSS-based applications where the developer has control over how components are implemented. Servo’s layout engine can similarly be used as the basis for Rust-based native UI frameworks.”

Maybe it is just me but “we are making a web browser from Servo” or even “YOU could make a web browser with Servo” seem to be markedly under-represented in those answers.

These are from the pages linked.

I guess my question back would be, “what evidence is there that Igalia plans to make a browser?”.

It is great to see Servo being actively worked on again. Rust is a great fit for a browser. It may even be a blessing that Servo is free of Mozilla’s corporate interests.

It does not seem that Igalia intends to make a browser out of it though. Hopefully somebody else steps up to make that happen.

The only answers you are getting simply reflect popularity.

To answer your question, I think F# is quite good. I use C# more often but F# is more expressive.