> People learn Rust because they love their craft.
We're exchanging opinions here without any kind of data to back either claim, but let me offer a contrarian view: people who learn niche-language-X because they love their craft are mostly younger folk with little experience in programming. My reasoning for this is that you get less and less time to pursue your love for a programming language when said love competes with love for your SO, your kids, and all the other things that happen to most people later in life.
It's anecdotal, but in my experience people who learn niche languages because of love or fashion are not the kind of people who will help write high-quality libraries for the ecosystem. For that, you need a stable, sizeable "middle class" - people who already know what their doing, who were able to evaluate the tool objectively, and who found a real value in it. Such people are not easy to come by: IME by the time they have enough experience, they mostly lost the eagerness to evaluate every shiny new thing that comes along.
> The hiring market is way better for Rust because it's not mainstream.
I would like to see the statistics you base this opinion on. In my experience (also 20+ years of programming here) this effect is more than offset by the small pool of applicants.
> Languages are tools, try to be impartial and pick the best tool for the job.
Yes. But you need to account for more than just technical features of a tool, like hiring or the opposition from the existing team to learning the tool. Choosing Rust when you have 20 seasoned, experienced C++ devs just because cargo is better than CMake... might not be the greatest of ideas.
We're exchanging opinions here without any kind of data to back either claim, but let me offer a contrarian view: people who learn niche-language-X because they love their craft are mostly younger folk with little experience in programming. My reasoning for this is that you get less and less time to pursue your love for a programming language when said love competes with love for your SO, your kids, and all the other things that happen to most people later in life.
It's anecdotal, but in my experience people who learn niche languages because of love or fashion are not the kind of people who will help write high-quality libraries for the ecosystem. For that, you need a stable, sizeable "middle class" - people who already know what their doing, who were able to evaluate the tool objectively, and who found a real value in it. Such people are not easy to come by: IME by the time they have enough experience, they mostly lost the eagerness to evaluate every shiny new thing that comes along.
> The hiring market is way better for Rust because it's not mainstream.
I would like to see the statistics you base this opinion on. In my experience (also 20+ years of programming here) this effect is more than offset by the small pool of applicants.
> Languages are tools, try to be impartial and pick the best tool for the job.
Yes. But you need to account for more than just technical features of a tool, like hiring or the opposition from the existing team to learning the tool. Choosing Rust when you have 20 seasoned, experienced C++ devs just because cargo is better than CMake... might not be the greatest of ideas.