Anyone heard about the language? Decided to give it a try but it looks that it lacks in the quant/math department.

I'd never heard of it (and there's no reason why I would have)
anyone who's interested can try it out at try it out
If you click on "Hello World" on the top right of that page, you can see how to print "Hello World" in Rust

Rust is just another language. I fear Dominic Connor would call it a quiche language. It has some nice features, but so do other mainstream languages. It's in VS2015.

It's not even in the top 50. Of course, you can do it for fun if you have the time. A rough guess is it had [5,10]% of the functionality of C#, which is a good one if you are building quant libraries and such like.

https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/

For production, use C/C++, C# and Java in the main. And Python is 'hot' it seems but I am not sure why really.

The language wars are over. 

Cuchulainn wrote:

Rust is just another language. I fear Dominic Connor would call it a quiche language. It has some nice features, but so do other mainstream languages. It's in VS2015.

It's not even in the top 50. Of course, you can do it for fun if you have the time. A rough guess is it had [5,10]% of the functionality of C#, which is a good one if you are building quant libraries and such like.

https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/

For production, use C/C++, C# and Java in the main. And Python is 'hot' it seems but I am not sure why really.

The language wars are over. 

Python is fantastic, it has an awesome library. Compared with C/C++ is a turtoise, I mean real math calcs

ExSan wrote:

Cuchulainn wrote:

Rust is just another language. I fear Dominic Connor would call it a quiche language. It has some nice features, but so do other mainstream languages. It's in VS2015.

It's not even in the top 50. Of course, you can do it for fun if you have the time. A rough guess is it had [5,10]% of the functionality of C#, which is a good one if you are building quant libraries and such like.

https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/

For production, use C/C++, C# and Java in the main. And Python is 'hot' it seems but I am not sure why really.

The language wars are over. 

Python is fantastic, it has an awesome library. Compared with C/C++ is a turtoise, I mean real math calcs

Fair enough. Apart from libs and prototyping what else? Would you use it to create a production quant library?
In C++/C# you have Eigen, MathNet, Quantlib, Alglib, Boost.. I do admit C++ could have more.

Different strokes for different folks.

Cuchulainn wrote:

It has some nice features, but so do other mainstream languages. It's in VS2015.

It has ADT, what most mainstream languages don't. As an OCaml developer, it is a must have feature It is also supposed to handle first-class functions (when I looked into the language (at his alpha stage), it was not the case, but it was planned). The ownership concept is also interesting to avoid manual memory handling, without the cost of a GC.

However, this language is not the easiest to learn, thus I lost interest in it (there are a lot of better ways to spend my free time).

A lot has been happening with types in the main mainstream language (C++) over the past few years. It's becoming a post-type language, just as we've become a post-truth society

VivienB wrote:

It has ADT, what most mainstream languages don't.

we're home even when you're not?

VivienB is spot on.

If you are doing mathsy applications, there's only one suitable programming paradigm.

katastrofa wrote:

A lot has been happening with types in the main mainstream language (C++) over the past few years. It's becoming a post-type language, just as we've become a post-truth society

It is quite surprising IMHO that std::tuple is supported since C++11, only.  std::function<> is a good addition.

There's always been a lot of push back when the Rust Evangelism Strikeforce comes out to play.

But they've got a microkernel/OS (Redox) and even a web engine (Firefox Quantum).

Sometimes it seems like the reason no one uses Rust is because of Rust's own users.

The (fundamental) problem is that developers choose a language based on a number of 'cool' criteria and language features. But VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE/applicability is not necessarily one of them.

e.g AOP was measured experimentally 10 years after it had become hype. Older viewers will remember how AOP was going to replace OOP in the late 90's.

@38.00 he talks about C++11' 1000 page reference; the word 'USABILITY' appears only twice.

My gut feeling is that developers choose Rust based on idiosyncratic criteria and features that appeal to them, not necessarily because it solves a compelling problem.

COBOL is still the world's most 'vital' language. And when big computer problems occur you call in IBM.

Cuchulainn wrote:

.....But VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE/applicability is not necessarily one of them......

How does one collect said evidence without using the language enough to see what it can and cannot do?

Maybe there's a few rules of thumb. For example, automatic garbage collection might be nice in some circumstances but unacceptable for hard real-time applications or languages that require loops to handle vectors, arrays, lists, sets, etc. really suck for math-oriented applications. But most to the more important properties such as expressive power, readability, usability, maintainability, etc. seem to be emergent.

Any valid analysis or comparison of languages comes after adoption, not before.

Traden4Alpha wrote:

Cuchulainn wrote:

.....But VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE/applicability is not necessarily one of them......

How does one collect said evidence without using the language enough to see what it can and cannot do?

Maybe there's a few rules of thumb.  For example, automatic garbage collection might be nice in some circumstances but unacceptable for hard real-time applications or languages that require loops to handle vectors, arrays, lists, sets, etc. really suck for math-oriented applications.  But most to the more important properties such as expressive power, readability, usability, maintainability, etc. seem to be emergent.

Any valid analysis or comparison of languages comes after adoption, not before.

Of course. But you are closing the discussion on a small part of the problem.

But that is not what the speaker is stating. The issue is that languages are announced as the best thing since baked bread even before they come out of the laboratoria. 

For 'adoption', engineering disciplines use proof-of-concepts. 

In the old days we used to say "There is no time to get right it 1st time, but all in the time in the world after that to fix it."