I found the discussion about Java and Rust very interesting. While I recognize that you had multiple possible reasons to explain the numbers, I think it is also fair to say these reason apply to most Java applications in use today: 1) bloated by bad design and frameworks 2) have unoptimized code 3) are old and out of date and 4) starting over allows you to address all the bad choices you made before. To be fair, it's not unreasonable that people in similar circumstance to get order of magnitude efficiency returns switching to Rust. I know I am on the JVM weekly newsletter, so it might be heresy to say so -- I actually don't doubt their shocking numbers. (They seem extreme, but it gets us talking.) There's more at play here than just an indictment against Java. We are seeing backlash in the industry right now regarding library proliferation - which saves time and money - but also commonly lowers product quality. (As an aside, I think it's only a matter of time before we start paying for libraries that make security a priority.) Going back to basics, where you have to think about efficiency -- in this case Rust -- has a lot of mileage as well. First, developers came for our hard drive space with library bloat. Then, they started wasting CPU time. Finally, we gave them Gigabytes of memory. No one thinks about efficiency anymore. I honestly wonder, because I started coding in 80 column, how many new programmers know how to design or code an algorithm? These numbers seem to me a measure of the industry as a whole. For the record, I still program in Java. I'm not an advocate for Rust. But I often marvel about how much control over my App I give to frameworks every single day.
I found the discussion about Java and Rust very interesting. While I recognize that you had multiple possible reasons to explain the numbers, I think it is also fair to say these reason apply to most Java applications in use today: 1) bloated by bad design and frameworks 2) have unoptimized code 3) are old and out of date and 4) starting over allows you to address all the bad choices you made before. To be fair, it's not unreasonable that people in similar circumstance to get order of magnitude efficiency returns switching to Rust. I know I am on the JVM weekly newsletter, so it might be heresy to say so -- I actually don't doubt their shocking numbers. (They seem extreme, but it gets us talking.) There's more at play here than just an indictment against Java. We are seeing backlash in the industry right now regarding library proliferation - which saves time and money - but also commonly lowers product quality. (As an aside, I think it's only a matter of time before we start paying for libraries that make security a priority.) Going back to basics, where you have to think about efficiency -- in this case Rust -- has a lot of mileage as well. First, developers came for our hard drive space with library bloat. Then, they started wasting CPU time. Finally, we gave them Gigabytes of memory. No one thinks about efficiency anymore. I honestly wonder, because I started coding in 80 column, how many new programmers know how to design or code an algorithm? These numbers seem to me a measure of the industry as a whole. For the record, I still program in Java. I'm not an advocate for Rust. But I often marvel about how much control over my App I give to frameworks every single day.