> I don't think rust is the future

Yeah because it's the present. Rust is everywhere now.

Well, that implies there's some sort of threshold that it's still reaching for and hasn't yet achieved before it can be considered successful. But it's already everywhere now. Hell, not only is it in the Linux kernel, it's even in Windows (!).

What a weird take. At first I though you were going to predict a language with an even more featureful and strict type system.

We don't need the "boreness" and human usability of Go anymore. Fast compile times are still nice though.

Lisp syntax doesn't have much value in the age of AI I think. Lisp seems optimized to make it easy to parse, and also easy to hack on the interpreter. I don't think Lisp was ever meant to optimize human readability. The uniformity and minimalism of Lisp makes it easier to learn the syntax though. -- I don't know, maybe I underestimate the value and flexibility of Lisp syntax.

I think the most valuable features of programming languages now are human readability and type systems that give guarantees humans can rely on. Some of the most exciting code AI has written has been in Lean.

A lisp with the type safety of rust. Mmmmmm. Makes me do the homer drool

Really? With AI you can have your cake and eat it too with Rust now.

There's some movement on specialization as well: https://goals.rust-lang.org/2026/specialization.html

It's not directly blocked on the solver, but getting the type system into a better shape definitely helps reasoning about the soundness issues involved.

> polymorphism

I assume you ask about polymorphization, which is a term used to refer to a specific optimization mentioned in the blog post.

The base version which Rust wants the most makes sense to enable by default for all builds, because it's purely just removing duplicate work - this is for cases like Vec<u64> and Vec<i64>, where we currently emit code for each one separately, even though it's pretty much the same for both.

More general version will make sense for debug builds or in some special cases, like when optimizing for size. I believe people also want to experiment with it for some interop use cases (and for that, it'd be useful to have source level annotation). I think it's too early to tell how all of this is going to look like, though.

The "hint" you could provide today for polymorphization is to write code like

    fn needs_string_like(x: Into<String>) {
        fn actual_logic(_: String) {}
        actual_logic(x.into())
    }

which is the explicit way of representing the same thing rustc would be doing automatically. The above will create an almost empty `needs_string_like` for each type that it is called with, but a single `actual_logic`. IIRC some optimization passess would completely remove specific instances of `needs_string_like` (like if you call `needs_string_like(String::new())`).

Hacker News has some automatic fixes for title text. Some - perhaps all - of them can walk into false positives where a change that's usually desirable instead ruins the title either because it's a joke and the change spoils the joke or just because English is complicated.

Return Type Notation (RTN) I believe is the big one blocked by the new solver. This is the primitive that makes it possible to add bounds to futures returned by async functions. This should look something like: `where <T as Trait>::method(..): Send`.

This is one of two remaining features needed to make Async Functions in Traits (AFITs) practical. Dyn dispatch support being the other missing feature, though that isn't blocked by the new solver.

Leadership matters. I don't suppose the Rust leaders have been telling their community to write more open-source code for free with the express purpose of replacing those people with LLMs trained on their work.

A bit out of the loop, what's going on with clippy?

(r-a team member here) The progress is in Salsa (the incremental framework we use), not in r-a itself yet. And there is progress but it's not particularly fast, it's also not a priority for the r-a team (though if you want to contribute, you're welcome of course).

I did this once but with Elixir, and it worked - because I shipped ahead of schedule (way ahead of the other teams portions). Performance and quality met the standards. Sometimes it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission if that means not having to fool with Java.

A papercut is an unbelievable way to describe this. I tried forking Codex CLI and, for a terminal UI that manages chats and HTTP requests, it takes over 15 minutes to rebuild trivial changes on a top-shelf CPU with all incremental/caching optimizations, and tens of GBs in build caches. Neither of those is acceptable. Full stop. I am aware part of the problem is that Codex CLI is a vibe-coded monstrosity (surprise, software is not solved), but I've not had this problem with vibe-coded monstrosities in eg. Go. Hold your language to better standards. That doesn't mean abandon Rust; that means strive to make the Rust toolchain better than the Go toolchain rather than shrugging your shoulders and saying "lol this is fine no way anybody could do anything about this".

Both (and memory) are a problem. Build sizes is definitely more easily solved just by throwing more disk at it though (unless you are using a hard constrained mac...).

~Zero build time Python vs 20 min for Rust web app

I can deal with large builds, what I cant deal with is time. My rust web application takes 20 minutes to build in release mode on a high end developer machine. I can’t build it in ci/cd.

The Rust toolchain by default produces a lot of debug information for each crate being compiled and the language relies heavily on monomorphization (instantiating a different function/type for each combination of generics) which translates to generally having duplicated functionality where the only difference in the object code is the different types. These two things combined, along with large dependency trees and that "features" for conditional compilation cause the same crate to be considered different across different workspaces (meaning the rlibs that were created for one can't be reused for another), means that the target directory for Rust projects can quickly grow. That, + clippy not having stabilized an already implemented process to automatically delete files from the target directory when they are unlikely to be needed again (which can't be 100% accurate, it uses heuristics because a developer could always potentially need an exact rlib from 6 months ago, it is just unlikely) means that you can expect that under the default configuration your target directory ends up being huge after a short period of time.

A lot of those things are in different stages of being fixed. I would personally want the default for generated debug information to be changed. cargo gc will help with running out of disk space. Better cross-project reuse of existing rlibs could be accomplished with some better tracking of optional features that can be unified (think having `serde` with feature `derive` enabled in one project, and having it without it in another: features are supposed to be purely additive, so you could reuse the earlier rlib on the later, but in practice people (ab?)use features in non-additive ways so it isn't straighforward to do something like that by default). Tools like hakari lets you create workspace-unified Cargo.toml to emulate this behavior.