As much as I like rust, I feel the statement is a bit premature.
Rust has only one real compiler and no independent language standard.
Rust is also the only alternative that is really being discussed most places. For an idea as major as "deprecate C/C++" you really want a couple solid alternatives. Rust is not perfect for everything, and so its easy to pick on the weaknesses and say "that's why we're sticking with C/C++".
I guess Ada or D are viable alternatives, too, and maybe need more attention. But the tweet only mentions rust.
Having a standard is overrated. What you usually want is clearly defined behavior and a good backwards compat story.
Standards only make sense to me in the presence of multiple compilers or formal verification. There is ongoing work on supporting the second use case. I don't understand why people want multiple compilers.
> Maybe there needs to be a tiny (incomplete?) rust compiler. Or maybe there should be an interpreter.
In which case the issue is "Rust doesn't have a small compiler" or "Rust doesn't have an interpreter". Having multiple compilers won't necessarily mean that those issues are resolved. A more generic argument would be something like "the existing compiler doesn't cover my use cases".
That's the way it's resolved in languages with a standard, multiple compilers and no preference towards any of the compilers. This doesn't mean it has to be done this way in Rust.
It seems like Rust is leaning towards doing that like it's done in python. One reference implementation, a language reference and a bunch of design documents (PEP, RFC). There are some areas where the language reference is lacking right now but that can be, and is being, fixed over time.
I never understood why it is a problem for some people. Single compiler means more people working on it instead of recreating same work multiple times (modules and coroutines are still not fully supported across all 3 biggest compilers).
What they're really saying is, "I can't build it with GCC", but that would sound too evangelical. Why they need GCC is another question.
Note to whoever I've angered: Please, don't reply with your reasoning why you need GCC. I don't care about your reasoning and that GCC unlike LLVM supports this platform that only used on calculators made by defunct company and sold whole 3 of them.
Rust has only one real compiler and no independent language standard.
Rust is also the only alternative that is really being discussed most places. For an idea as major as "deprecate C/C++" you really want a couple solid alternatives. Rust is not perfect for everything, and so its easy to pick on the weaknesses and say "that's why we're sticking with C/C++".
I guess Ada or D are viable alternatives, too, and maybe need more attention. But the tweet only mentions rust.