Comment by fleventynine
9 months ago
I'm a Rust fan (mostly for embedded firmware with minimal deps), but even after 10 years of playing with the language it's not clear to me that advanced GUI or gamedev fits well with the borrow checker. It requires a significant paradigm shift in architecture, and I'm not convinced it's worth making that shift, especially if your application can tolerate a garbage collector (which many games and most UI apps can).
https://dioxuslabs.com/blog/release-050
Seems promising, very React-esque with little boilerplate
Development speed is many times lower than with Typescript frameworks, while the result is not faster or significantly more stable.
Why should anyone choose Dioxus over Sveltekit, Next or Nuxt? I never had an issue with a frontend app that the borrow checker would have catched. Error handling was an issues some years ago but is solved by now when using one of those modern frameworks. (I don't know if Dioxus has error boundaries, though.)
Those Rust fullstack frameworks make sense only for people wanting to use Rust, not for people looking for the right tool for the job.
Idk maybe when you can’t target web.
I hope Rust does gain mature options for its GUI ecosystem, but the author of the article makes a very good point that in other languages, there would be mature options in use already. "Seems promising" is too little, too late.
For sure! I would not write a game in Rust in 2024.
1 reply →
Agreed. Multiple languages exist. They can be part of {your, your team's} toolbox for different specific purposes. Some languages are set by other tools or by team members' backgrounds. Popularity also lends itself to greater availability of tools and Q&A forums. In the end, it's a better decision-making process to select what is most likely to be long-term productive for a specific project and team.