> I'm sure some game developers would rather have an occasional crash they can fix down the road after their game is published than be forced to make a perfect system the first time.
> Remember, with game production, it's about time-to-market, not about perfect code.
In a way you are over-selling Rust, because it doesn't offer perfect code! I'm not sure why Mozilla would pay to build it if that's what it was about.
What it offers is a lower defect rate, which is something you can definitely leverage to improve productivity. Lower defect rate at any cost is clearly too expensive; but developers seem to have been able to absorb the complexity of C++ alright and it Rust can't be called more complex than C++.
To be clear, I didn't say Rust offered perfect code. But supposedly better code comes from Rust, as you're arguing.
While Rust as a language isn't more complex, the paradigms are different. Games often have trees and lists, which are a real pain in Rust. To do things right in Rust requires learning new ways of doing things - not something game devs want to spend time on. They've been working with the same horse for years, so they keep riding it.
> Remember, with game production, it's about time-to-market, not about perfect code.
In a way you are over-selling Rust, because it doesn't offer perfect code! I'm not sure why Mozilla would pay to build it if that's what it was about.
What it offers is a lower defect rate, which is something you can definitely leverage to improve productivity. Lower defect rate at any cost is clearly too expensive; but developers seem to have been able to absorb the complexity of C++ alright and it Rust can't be called more complex than C++.