Rust Nation UK - Track 1

In the talk, Lars mentions that they often rely on self-reported anonymous data. But in this case, Google is large enough that teams have developed similar systems and/or literally re-written things, and so this claim comes from analyzing projects before and after these re-writes, so you’re comparing like teams and like projects. Timestamped: link to this video Some additional context on these two specific claims: Google found that porting Go to Rust "it takes about the same sized team about the same time to build it, so that's no loss of productivity" and "we do see some benefits from it, we see reduced memory usage ... and we also see a decreased defect rate over time" On re-writing C++ into Rus…

Even though it doesn’t tackle your concerns about C vs Rust head-on, I’ll refer to a talk Google gave about Rust earlier. You may find it interesting and maybe comforting: link to this video > Is increased memory safety really worth it when it obscures the code behind fancy constructs, makes it harder to review Google said: more than half of respondents said Rust is easier to review than other languages (at 7:35:17 in the video) > Logic errors aren't. My worry is that these new languages are giving people a false sense of security, while simultaneously making these kinds of errors easier to make Google said: 85% of respondents are more confident their teams Rust code is correct compared to other la…

The Google Director of Engineering uses an example of what's basically C code for the "idiomatic C++" here in the talk example. There's even the use of the `struct` keyword to create an object at the top. Only needed in C.