I find the dependency creep for both rust and node unfortunate. Almost anything I add explodes the deps and makes me sweat for maintenance, vulnerabilities, etc. I also feel perpetually behind, which I think is basically frontend default mode. Go does the one thing I wish Rust had more of which is a pretty darn great standard library with total backwards compatibility promises. There are awkward things with Go, but man, not needing to feel paranoid and how much can be built with so little feels good. But I totally understand just getting crap done and taking off the tin foil. Depends on what you prioritize. Solo devs don't have the luxury.
Those deps have to come from somewhere, right? Unless you're actually rolling your own everything, and with languages that don't have package managers what you end up doing is just adding submodules of various libraries and running their cmake configs, which is at least as insecure as NPM or Crates.io.
Go is a bit unique a it has a really substantial stdlib, so you eliminate some of the necessary deps, but it's also trivial to rely on established packages like Tokio etc, vendor them into your codebase, and not have to worry about it in the future.
Big caveat that this is just for me personally, but uv has fixed this for me personally. Game changing improvement for Python. Appropriately, uv is written in rust.
These are two sides of the same coin. Go has its quirks because they put things in the standard library so they can't iterate (in breaking manners), while Rust can iterate and improve ideas much faster as it's driven by the ecosystem.
Edit: changed "perfect" to "improve", as I meant "perfect" as "betterment" not in terms of absolute perfection.
The golang.org/x/ namespace is the other half of the standard library in all but name. That gets iterated often.
For stuff in the standard library proper, the versioning system is working well for it. For example, the json library is now at v2. Code relying on the original json API can still be compiled.
There is a moral hazard here. By accepting that APIs are forever, you tend to be more cautious and move toward getting it right the first time.
Slower is better... And also faster in the long run, as things compose.
Personally, I do believe that there is one best way to do things quite often, but time constraints make people settle.
At least it is my experience building some systems.
Not sure it is always a good calculus to defer the hard thinking to later.
The cost of "perfecting" an idea here is ruining the broader ecosystem. It is much much better for an API to be kinda crappy (but stable) for historical reasons than dealing with the constant churn and fragmentation caused by, for example, the fifth revision of that URL routing library that everyone uses because everyone uses it. It only gets worse by the orthogonal but comorbid attitude of radically minimizing the scope of dependencies.
Which has been working great for go, right. They shipped "log" and "flag" stdlib packages, so everyone uses... well, not those. I think "logrus" and "zap" are probably the most popular, but there's a ton of fragmentation in Go because of the crappy log package, including Go itself now shipping two logging packages in the stdlib ('log/slog').
Rust on the other hand has "log" as a clear winner, and significantly less overall fragmentation there.
> It is much much better for an API to be kinda crappy (but stable) for historical reasons
But this does more than just add a maintenance burden. If the API can't be removed, architectural constraints it imposes also can't be removed.
e.g. A hypothetical API that guarantees a callback during a specific phase of an operation means that you couldn't change to a new or better algorithm that doesn't have that phase.
Realize the "log" api is bad? Make "log/slog". Realize the "rand" api is bad? Make "rand/v2". Realize the "image/draw" api is bad? Make "golang.org/x/image/draw". Realize the "ioutil" package is bad? Move all the functions into "io".
Te stdlib already has at least 3 different patterns for duplicating API functionality with minor backwards-incompatible changes, and you can just do that and mark the old things as deprecated, but support it forever. Easy enough.
> mark the old things as deprecated, but support it forever
Is that 'supported'? A library that uses a callback that exists in 'log' but not in 'slog'; it'll compile forever, but it'll never work.
'Compiles but doesn't work' does not count as stable in my book. It's honestly worse than removing the API: both break, but one of them is noticed when the break happens.
I think “the fifth revision of that URL routing library that everyone uses” is a much less common case than “crate tried to explore a problem space, five years later a new crate thinks it can improve upon the solution”, which is what Rust’s conservatism really helps prevent. When you bake a particular crate into std, competitor crates now have a lot of inertia to overcome; when they're all third-party, the decision is not “add a crate?” but “replace a crate?” which is more palatable.
Letting an API evolve in a third-party crate also provides more accurate data on its utility; you get a lot of eyes on the problem space and can try different (potentially breaking) solutions before landing on consensus. Feedback during a Rust RFC is solicited from a much smaller group of people with less real-world usage.
The dependency creep keeps on happening in web frameworks where ever you look.
I was thinking of this quote from the article:
> Take it or leave it, but the web is dynamic by nature. Most of the work is serializing and deserializing data between different systems, be it a database, Redis, external APIs, or template engines. Rust has one of the best (de)serialization libraries in my opinion: serde. And yet, due to the nature of safety in Rust, I’d find myself writing boilerplate code just to avoid calling .unwrap(). I’d get long chain calls of .ok_or followed by .map_err. I defined a dozen of custom error enums, some taking other enums, because you want to be able to handle errors properly, and your functions can’t just return any error.
I was thinking: This is so much easier in Haskell.
Rather than chains of `ok_or()` and `map_err()` you use the functor interface
It's just infinitely more readable and using the single `<$>` operator spares you an infinite number of `map_or` and `ok_or` and other error handling.
However, having experience in large commercial Haskell projects, I can tell you the web apps also suffer from the dreaded dependency explosion. I know of one person who got fired from a project due to no small fact that building the system he was presented with took > 24 hours when a full build was triggered, and this happened every week. He was on an older system, and the company failed to provide him with something newer, but ultimately it is a failing of the "everything and the kitchen sink" philosophy at play in dependency usage.
I don't have a good answer for this. I think aggressive dependency reduction and tracking transitive dependency lists is one step forward, but it's only a philosophy rather than a system.
Rust has trouble supporting higher-kinded types like Functor (even though an equivalent feature is available, namely Generic Associated Types) due to the distinctions it makes between owned and referenced data that have no equivalent in Haskell. Whether these higher abstractions can still be used elegantly despite that complexity is something that should be explored via research, this whole area is not ready for feature development.
php is the only popular language that regularly removes insane legacy cruft (to be fair, they have more insane cruft than almost any other language to begin with).
I've found Go's standard library to be really unfortunate compared to rust.
When I update the rust compiler, I do so with very little fear. My code will still work. The rust stdlib backwards compatible story has been very solid.
Updating the Go compiler, I also get a new stdlib, and suddenly I get a bunch of TLS version deprecation, implicit http2 upgrades, and all sorts of new runtime errors which break my application (and always at runtime, not compiletime). Bundling a large standard library with the compiler means I can't just update the tls package or just update the image package, I have to take it or leave it with the whole thing. It's annoying.
They've decided the go1 promise means "your code will still compile, but it will silently behave differently, like suddenly 'time1 == time2' will return a different result, or 'http.Server' will use a different protocol", and that's somehow backwards compatible.
I also find the go stdlib to have so many warts now that it's just painful. Don't use "log", use "log/slog", except the rest of the stdlib that takes a logger uses "log.Logger" because it predates "slog", so you have to use it. Don't use the non-context methods (like 'NewRequest' is wrong, use 'NewRequestWithContext', don't use net.Dial, etc), except for all the places context couldn't be bolted on.
Don't use 'image/draw', use 'golang.org/x/image/draw' because they couldn't fix some part of it in a backwards compatible way, so you should use the 'x/' package. Same for syscall vs x/unix. But also, don't use 'golang.org/x/net/http2' because that was folded into 'net/http', so there's not even a general rule of "use the x package if it's there", it's actually "keep up with the status of all the x packages and sometimes use them instead of the stdlib, sometimes use the stdlib instead of them".
Go's stdlib is a way more confusing mess than rust. In rust, the ecosystem has settled on one logging library interface, not like 4 (log, slog, zap, logrus). In rust, updates to the stdlib are actually backwards compatible, not "oh, yeah, sha1 certs are rejected now if you update the compiler for better compile speeds, hope you read the release notes".
Man, I've been using Go as my daily driver since 2012 and I think I can count the number of breaking changes I've run into on one finger, and that was a critical security vulnerability. I have no doubt there have been others, but I've not had the misfortune of running into them.
> Don't use "log", use "log/slog", except the rest of the stdlib that takes a logger uses "log.Logger" because it predates "slog", so you have to use it.
What in the standard library takes a logger at all? I don't think I've ever passed a logger into the standard library.
> the ecosystem has settled on one logging library interface, not like 4 (log, slog, zap, logrus)
I've only seen slog since slog was added to the standard library. Pretty sure I've seen logrus or similar in the Kubernetes code, but that predated slog by a wide margin and anyway I don't recall seeing _any_ loggers in library code.
> In rust, the ecosystem has settled on one logging library interface
I mean, in Rust everyone has different advice on which crates to use for error handling and when to use each of them. You definitely don't have _more standards_ in the Rust ecosystem.
> I don't think I've ever passed a logger into the standard library.
`net/http.Server.ErrorLog` is the main (only?) one, though there's a lot of third-party libraries that take one.
> I've only seen slog since slog was added to the standard library
Most go libraries aren't updated yet, in fact I can't say I've seen any library using slog yet. We're clearly interfacing with different slices of the go ecosystem.
> in Rust everyone has different advice on which crates to use for error handling and when to use each of them. You definitely don't have _more standards_ in the Rust ecosystem.
They all are still using the same error type, so it interoperates fine. That's like saying "In go, every library has its own 'type MyError struct { .. }' that implements error, so go has more standards because each package has its own concrete error types", which yeah, that's common... The rust libraries like 'thiserror' and such are just tooling to do that more ergonomically than typing out a bunch of structs by hand.
Even if one dependency in rust uses hand-typed error enums and another uses thiserror, you still can just 'match' on the error in your code or such.
On the other hand, in Go you end up having to carefully read through each dependency's code to figure out if you need to be using 'errors.Is' or 'errors.As', and with what types, but with no help from the type-system since all errors are idiomatically type-erased.
Honestly this is one of the biggest reasons I stick with Elixir. Between Elixir’s standard library, the BEAM/OTP, and Phoenix (with Ecto)—- I honestly have very few dependencies for web projects. I rarely, at this point, find the need to add anything to new projects except for maybe Mox (mocking library) and Faker (for generating bits of test data). And now that the Jason (JSON) library has been more or less integrated into OTP I don’t even have to pull it in. Elixir dev experience is truly unmatched (IMHO) these days.
the idea of one language to rule them all is very compelling. it’s been promised a lot, and now everyone hates Java.
but the truth is that Rust is not meant for everything. UI is an abstraction layer that is very human and dynamic. and i can come and say, “well, we can hide that dynamism with clever graph composition tricks” à la Elm, React, Compose, etc, but the machinery that you have to build for even the simplest button widget in almost every Rust UI toolkit is a mess of punctuation, with things like lifetimes and weird state management systems. you end up building a runtime when what you want is just the UI. that’s what higher level languages were made for. of course data science could be done in Rust as well, but is the lifetime of the file handle you’re trying to open really what you’re worried about when doing data analysis?
i think Rust has a future in the UI/graphics engine space, but you have to be pretty stubborn to use it for your front end.
There are real advantages to choosing a jack of all trades language for everything; for example it makes it easier for an engineer on one part of your project to help out on a different part of your project.
But it sounds like the OP didn't get any of the benefits of "jack of all trades", nor did he choose a field where Rust is "master of some".
Yes. This is one of the things that drives me nuts about a lot of titles on here: the context like “for the web” changes how it’s is interpreted a great deal. I see the same thing when I see posts about other languages and AI and such. Context matters versus making it sound like a broad, general statement. Alas, the broad, general statements likely get more engagement..
Agreed! The context matters a lot. Rust is a great language, but using it for the web is a poor choice just like using JS outside the web is a poor choice. Programming languages all have domains where they do well or poorly, and trying to make a single language work for all cases is a fool's errand.
Aiui they are also migrating their backend api(s) from rust to node. They were already using astro with rust on the backend (after dropping ssr with tera).
I'm a heavy Rust user and fan, but I'd never pick Rust for web. There are way more mature ecosystems out there to choose from. Why would you waste "innovation tokens" in a Rust-based web application?
I enjoyed using Rust/WASM for a web application I made. Once I got the build step figured out, which took a week, the application worked like I wanted right away.
I was trying to build an HTML generator in Rust and got pretty far, but I don't think I'll ever be happy with the API unless I learn some pretty crazy macro stuff, which I don't want. For the latter project, the "innovation tokens" really rings true for me, I spent months on the HTML gen for not much benefit.
For a web backend? Rust is pretty mature there, it doesn't even feel like an innovation token - it's by my favorite thing to use Rust for.
You have very mature webservers, asyncio, ORMs, auth, etc., it's very easy to write, and the type safety helps a ton.
In 2020 it might have taken some innovation tokens, but the only things that require a ton less (for web backend) are probably Java, python, and node.js, and they all have their unique pain points that it doesn't seem at all crazy?
due to the nature of safety in Rust, I’d find myself writing boilerplate code just to avoid calling .unwrap(). I’d get long chain calls of .ok_or followed by .map_err. I defined a dozen of custom error enums, some taking other enums, because you want to be able to handle errors properly, and your functions can’t just return any error.
This can be a double edged sword. Yes, languages like python and typescript/JavaScript will let you not catch an exception, which can be convenient. But that also often leads to unexpected errors popping up in production.
Often is not the word I'd use, from my experience.
The times something like that happened to me AND wasn't a trivial fix can be counted on half a hand. A tradeoff I'd take any day to not have to deal with rust all of the time.
> Similar thing can be said about writing SQL. I was really happy with using sqlx, which is a crate for compile-time checked SQL queries. By relying on macros in Rust, sqlx would execute the query against a real database instance in order to make sure that your query is valid, and the mappings are correct. However, writing dynamic queries with sqlx is a PITA, as you can’t build a dynamic string and make sure it’s checked during compilation, so you have to resort to using non-checked SQL queries. And honestly, with kysely in Node.js, I can get a similar result, without the need to have a connection to the DB, while having ergonomic query builder to build dynamic queries, without the overhead of compilation time.
I've used sqlx, and its alright, but I've found things much easier after switching to sea-orm. Sea-orm has a wonderful query builder that makes it feel like you are writing SQL. Whereas with sqlx you end up writing Rust that generates SQL strings, ie re-inventing query builders.
You also get type checking; define your table schema as a struct, and sea-orm knows what types your columns are. No active connection required. This approach lets you use Rust types for fields, eg Email from the email crate or Url from the url crate, which lets you constrain fields even further than what is easy to do at the DB layer.
ORMs tend to get a bad reputation for how some ORMs implement the active record pattern. For example, you might forget something is an active record and write something like "len(posts)" in sqlalchemy and suddenly you are counting records by pulling them from the DB in one by one. I haven't had this issue with sea-orm, because it is very clear about what is an active record and what is not, and it is very clear when you are making a request out to the DB. For me, it turns out 90% of the value of an ORM is the query builder.
sqlx doesn't build queries, or at least it minimally builds them. Which I think is the thing the OP is complaining about.
And, IMO, making dynamic queries harder is preferable. Dynamic queries are inherently unsafe. Sometimes necessary, however you have to start considering things like sql injection attacks with dynamic queries.
This isn't to poo poo sea-orm. I'm just saying that sqlx's design choice to make dynamic queries hard is a logical choice from a safety standpoint.
> And, IMO, making dynamic queries harder is preferable. Dynamic queries are inherently unsafe. Sometimes necessary, however you have to start considering things like sql injection attacks with dynamic queries.
Depends on what you mean by "dynamic query". You are dealing with injection attacks as soon as you start taking user input. Most useful user facing applications take user input.
In a simple case it might be "SELECT * FROM posts WHERE title LIKE '%hello world%', where "hello world" is a user specified string. This is easy with sqlx. Where things get more difficult is if you want to optionally add filters for things like date posted, score of the post, author, etc... That makes the query dynamic in a way that can't be solved by simply including a bind.
That's where sea-orm shines over sqlx IMO. sqlx will force you to do something like
```
let mut my_query = "SELECT * FROM posts WHERE title LIKE '%' + $1 + '%'";
let mut my_binds = vec![args.keyword];
if let Some(date) = args.date {
my_query = format("{my_query} AND date = $2");
my_binds.push(date);
}
...
```
Your building a string and tracking binds. It gets messy. A good query builder like seaorm has lets you do something this:
```
let mut query = Posts::find().filter(Column::title::like(args.keyword));
if let Some(date) = args.date {
query = query.filter(column::Date::eq(date));
}
```
This pays off as your queries get more complicated. It pushes the string manipulation and bookkeeping into a library, which can be more thoroughly tested.
It also lets you pass around typed partial queries, eg in the example above query might be returned from a function, which helps you build more modular code.
I agree with what you are saying, this is exactly what I was thinking when I said it was sometimes necessary. It's just not preferable IMO.
For this specific example, the better way is something like this
let result = if let Some(date) = args.date {
sqlx::query("SELECT * FROM posts WHERE title LIKE '%' + $1 + '%' AND date = $2")
.bind(args.keyword)
.bind(date)
.fetch()
} else {
sqlx::query("SELECT * FROM posts WHERE title LIKE '%' + $1 + '%")
.bind(args.keyword)
.fetch()
}
But I get how this would be untenable if as the number of query param combos goes up. In that case dynamic SQL really is the only sane way to handle something like that.
They didn't make them hard by design, I think, it's just the limitations of the current API and prioritisation. Dynamic queries are possible, just not trivial
It's a throwaway comment in the article, but I feel it's important to push back on: HTML is very definitely a programming language, by any reasonable definition of "programming language".
Edit to add: It might not be an imperative language, but having written some HTML and asked the computer to interpret it, the computer now has a programmed capability, determined by what was written, that's repeatable and that was not available apart from the HTML given. QED.
How would one do an if condition or enumerate a list in HTML alone? For that functionality you need another language to generate/manipulate the HTML.. not to mention interpreting HTML for display.
HTML is a markup language, it's even in the name... but it's not a complete programming language by any stretch.
It's not Turing-complete, and as you say, it's a markup language and it's not general purpose. But neither is a necessary component of "programming language".
Exactly... it's pretty much what I consider the minimum for a "programming language" is that you need to be able to have basic state and be able to make use of state.
For that matter, it wouldn't take much to get HTML to have those features... though the DOM, JS and even WASM do so well, we don't need it generally speaking.
I would assume today that maybe Dioxus or Leptos would be considered. Though that would be the "all in" approach on Rust front to back... it wouldn't really reduce some of the handling conditions levied in the article though.
I find C# can be a really good middle ground on the backend (not a blazor fan)... the syntax and expressiveness improves with every release. You can burrow as lot of patterns from the likes of Go as well as FP approaches. What I don't care for are excessively complex (ie: "Enterprise") environments where complexity is treated like a badge of honor instead of the burden of spaghetti that it is in practice.
The TS/React ecosystem is so mature, it's hard for Rust to compete with it. My optimal stack is currently: Rust on the backend, Typescript/React for web with OpenAPI for shared types.
React and its ecosystem is a pile of garbage perpetuated by industry inertia. UseState, useMemo, useThisAndThat where you have to guess whether that dependency will cause a re-render? Or 20 different routers, state managers, query builders? I'm not even talking about html-in-ts with `!!a && (<div>...</div>)` A stodgy, bloated, overhyped and misused monstrosity, that's what React is.
Running rust in wasm works really well. I feel like I'm the world's biggest cheerleader for it, but I was just amazed at how well it works. The one annoying thing is using web APIs through rust - you can do it with web-sys and js-sys, but it's rarely as ergonomic as it is in javascript. I usually end up writing wrapper libraries that make it easy, sometimes even easier than javascript (e.g. in rust I can use weblocks with RAII)
It does work well logically but performance is pretty bad. I had a nontrivial Rust project running on Cloudflare Workers, and CPU time very often clocked 10-60ms per request. This is >50x what the equivalent JS worker probably would've clocked. And in that environment you pay for CPU time...
The rust-js layer can be slow. But the actual rust code is much faster than the equivalent JS in my experience. My project would not be technically possible with javascript levels of performance
I did. I don't remember the specifics too well but a lot of it was cold starts. So just crunching the massive wasm binary was a big part of it. Otherwise it was the matchit library and js interop marshalling taking the rest of the time.
I'm doing this now and it's mostly great but the openapi generators are not good. At least the Typescript ones produce confusing function signatures and invalid type syntax in some cases.
Rust shines in user-space systems-level applications (databases, cloud infrastructure, etc.) but definitely feels a bit out of place in more business-logic heavy applications.
> And the occasional struggles with typescript where the runtime seems to be changing too often; is it ts-node? tsx? tsm? The built-in typescript runtime in node? deno? bun?
This whole paragraph is so true. The last couple of years have been pretty rough in Node land.
Well, yep. People underappreciate the Typescript/JS ecosystem.
Typescript is pretty type-safe, and it's perfectly integrated with hot code reload, debuggers, and all the usual tools. Adding transpilation in that flow only creates friction.
That's also why things like Blazor are going nowhere. C# is nicer than Typescript, but the additional friction of WASM roundtrips just eats all the advantage.
I think the big thing keeping Blazor back is that C# doesn't work well with WASM. It was built at a time when JIT-optimized languages with a larger runtime were in-vogue. That's fine in a lot of cases, but it means that C# isn't well suited for shipping a small amount of code over the wire to browsers. A Blazor payload is going to end up being over 4MB. If you use ahead of time compilation, that can balloon to 3x more. The fact that C# offers internal pointers makes it incompatible with the current WASM GC implementation.
Blazor performance is around 3x slower than React, it'll use 15-20x more RAM, and it's 20x larger over the wire. I think if Blazor could match React performance, it'd be quite popular. As it stands, it's hard to seriously consider it for something where users have other options.
Microsoft has been working to make C#/.NET better for AOT compilation, but it's tough. Java has been going through this too. I don't really know what state it's at, but (for example) when you have a lot of libraries doing runtime code generation, that's fine when you have a JIT compiler running the program. Any new code generated at runtime can be run and optimized like any other code that it's running.
People do underappreciate the JS/TS ecosystem, but I think there are other reasons holding back stuff running on WASM. With Blazor, performance, memory usage, and payload size are big issues. With Flutter and Compose Multiplatform, neither is giving you a normal HTML page and instead just renders onto a canvas. With Rust, projects like Dioxus are small and relatively new. And before WASM GC and the shared heap, there was always more overhead for anything doing DOM stuff. WASM GC is also pretty new - it's only been a little over a year since all the major browsers supported it. We're really in the infancy of other languages in the browser.
I don't know about what other strictness you're referring to but exhaustive enum matching is common check in most TS stacks via eslint. Yea, it's not builtin, just saying there's a solution and it's super common.
As someone who went in the opposite direction from Node to Rust, I feel like OP is just trading one set of problems for another set of substantially worse problems. I guess the grass is always greener in the other ecosystem ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Idk, it just feels like OP chose all the wrong approaches with Rust, including using a separate language and ecosystem for the frontend, which is where most of the friction comes from. For example, Dioxus is a React clone that is somehow leagues better than React (and Next.js, too), and it has hot-reloading that brings compiles down to subsecond times, which makes building UI with it just as productive as with Node / Vite etc. I use it for server side code as well and it's great. Compilation times can be an issue with Rust, it's something I miss from Go, but there are ways to improve on it, and just being smart about what deps you include, avoiding overuse of macros etc can make a difference. I know these things were not around when OP started using Rust for their application, but they are around now.
Node and TS are quite frankly inferior to Rust in most ways. Bad language, ecosystem full of buggy unmaintained packages with the worse security profile of all the common languages, no unified build tooling that seems to break your project every 6 months, constant churn of blessed frameworks and tools, an stdlib that is not much more comprehensive than Rust's and outright broken in some ways, at least three different approaches to modules (esm, commonjs, umd, and more...?), I could go on an on. There is a reason why everyone seemingly reinvents the wheel in that ecosystem over and over again -- the language and platform is fundamentally not capable of achieving peoples goals, and every solution developed comes with massive tradeoffs that the next iteration attempts to solve, but that just creates additional issues or regressions for future attempts to tackle.
I've been using Rust with Dioxus and was completely mind blown when I started with it. With barely knowing any Rust (just React) I was able to jump right in and build with it, somehow it was more intuitive to me than most modern JS full stack frameworks. It seemingly already has most if not all of the features that similar JS frameworks have been developing for years, and because it's written in Rust things like conditional compilation are built into the language instead of being a third party babel plugin. That helps to remove a ton of friction. And it's trivial to build those same apps for desktop and mobile as well, something that's basically not possible with the JS frameworks.
Even stuff like websockets, go try to implement a type safe web socket connection with a server and client in Next.js or Astro. You'll need a ws library, something like Zod for validation, etc. In Rust it's just:
I think this is spot on. I've used Iced and Dioxus and both are great. I do take the author's point that the actual UI code, even in Dioxus, is verbose. It is. And that's a trade off I'm willing to make for guaranteed correctness.
I haven't used Iced but re. Dioxus, I don't know if it's necessary more verbose conceptually. One of the most frustrating things with React is handling async updates, and while Rust's async story is conceptually difficult, it's ultimately much easier to reason about (imo). Like are we sure a comparable component in React would be any less verbose?
let mut breed = use_signal(|| "hound".to_string());
let dogs = use_resource(move || async move {
reqwest::Client::new()
.get(format!("https://dog.ceo/api/breed/{breed}/images"))
.send()
.await?
.json::<BreedResponse>()
.await
});
rsx! {
input {
value: "{breed}",
oninput: move |e| breed.set(e.value()),
}
div {
display: "flex",
flex_direction: "row",
if let Some(response) = &*dogs.read() {
match response {
Ok(urls) => rsx! {
for image in urls.iter().take(3) {
img {
src: "{image}",
width: "100px",
height: "100px",
}
}
},
Err(err) => rsx! { "Failed to fetch response: {err}" },
}
} else {
"Loading..."
}
}
}
Imo the RSX here is much less verbose than JSX. Inline match statement, inline if statement, inline for loop, .take(3) compared to `Array.from({ length: 3 }).map((_, i) => urls[i]))`, etc etc. This gives you automatic cancellation of the future, whereas with React you would need a third party library like React Query, and then manually abort requests in the asynchronous function with an abort signal -- in Rust, you get that for free. You also get data validation for free, instead of needing eg. Zod for manual runtime validation.
This is oddly timed in as much as one of the big success stories I've heard from a friend is their new practice of having Claude Code develop in Rust, than translate that to WebAssembly.
That seems much more like the future than embracing Node... <emoji here>
If you’re making a web app your fancy rust wasm module still has to interface with the dom, so you can’t escape that. Claude might offer you some fake simplicity on that front for awhile, but skeptical that’s it fully scalable
I run Rust/Axum for something that's less a web app and more a living system — autonomous agents, real-time state (pulse, mood, health metrics), a frontend that shifts based on internal conditions rather than just user input.
For this kind of use case, Rust's type system isn't overhead — it's the reason things stay coherent when multiple agents are running concurrently. The error handling that feels like boilerplate in a CRUD app actually matters when a missed unwrap means your system silently stops working at 3am.
The article reads to me like someone building a content site in Rust, which yeah, is painful for no reason. But I'd push back on the broader framing — the web is more than blogs and dashboards. When your backend does meaningful autonomous work beyond serializing JSON, Rust pays for itself.
I find the dependency creep for both rust and node unfortunate. Almost anything I add explodes the deps and makes me sweat for maintenance, vulnerabilities, etc. I also feel perpetually behind, which I think is basically frontend default mode. Go does the one thing I wish Rust had more of which is a pretty darn great standard library with total backwards compatibility promises. There are awkward things with Go, but man, not needing to feel paranoid and how much can be built with so little feels good. But I totally understand just getting crap done and taking off the tin foil. Depends on what you prioritize. Solo devs don't have the luxury.
Those deps have to come from somewhere, right? Unless you're actually rolling your own everything, and with languages that don't have package managers what you end up doing is just adding submodules of various libraries and running their cmake configs, which is at least as insecure as NPM or Crates.io.
Go is a bit unique a it has a really substantial stdlib, so you eliminate some of the necessary deps, but it's also trivial to rely on established packages like Tokio etc, vendor them into your codebase, and not have to worry about it in the future.
The tradeoff Go made is that certain code just cannot be written in it.
Its STD exists because Go is a language built around a "good enough" philosophy, and it gets painful once you leave that path.
> Go is a bit unique a it has a really substantial stdlib
It’s not that unique though. I can say that Python and hell, even PHP have pretty complete but also well documented stdlib.
Java is meh tier but C# is also pretty good in this aspect.
It’s totally a choice for Rust not to have a real stdlib and actually I feel like that would maybe make Rust maybe the best language overall.
Python used to have a great standard library, too. But now it's stuck with a bunch of obsolete packages and the packaging story for Python is awful.
In a decade or so Go the awkward things about Go will have multiplied significantly and it'll have many of the same problems Python currently has.
> the packaging story for Python is awful.
Big caveat that this is just for me personally, but uv has fixed this for me personally. Game changing improvement for Python. Appropriately, uv is written in rust.
Lots of removals have already happened and uv took over packaging in Python-land.
Which, ironically, is written in rust
Well, Python is largely written in C, so there's that.
I just ported (this week) a 20-year-old Python app to uv/polars. (With AI it took two days). App is now 20x faster.
Both uv and polars are technically Rust, too.
These are two sides of the same coin. Go has its quirks because they put things in the standard library so they can't iterate (in breaking manners), while Rust can iterate and improve ideas much faster as it's driven by the ecosystem.
Edit: changed "perfect" to "improve", as I meant "perfect" as "betterment" not in terms of absolute perfection.
The golang.org/x/ namespace is the other half of the standard library in all but name. That gets iterated often.
For stuff in the standard library proper, the versioning system is working well for it. For example, the json library is now at v2. Code relying on the original json API can still be compiled.
There is a moral hazard here. By accepting that APIs are forever, you tend to be more cautious and move toward getting it right the first time. Slower is better... And also faster in the long run, as things compose. Personally, I do believe that there is one best way to do things quite often, but time constraints make people settle.
At least it is my experience building some systems.
Not sure it is always a good calculus to defer the hard thinking to later.
The cost of "perfecting" an idea here is ruining the broader ecosystem. It is much much better for an API to be kinda crappy (but stable) for historical reasons than dealing with the constant churn and fragmentation caused by, for example, the fifth revision of that URL routing library that everyone uses because everyone uses it. It only gets worse by the orthogonal but comorbid attitude of radically minimizing the scope of dependencies.
Which has been working great for go, right. They shipped "log" and "flag" stdlib packages, so everyone uses... well, not those. I think "logrus" and "zap" are probably the most popular, but there's a ton of fragmentation in Go because of the crappy log package, including Go itself now shipping two logging packages in the stdlib ('log/slog').
Rust on the other hand has "log" as a clear winner, and significantly less overall fragmentation there.
> It is much much better for an API to be kinda crappy (but stable) for historical reasons
But this does more than just add a maintenance burden. If the API can't be removed, architectural constraints it imposes also can't be removed.
e.g. A hypothetical API that guarantees a callback during a specific phase of an operation means that you couldn't change to a new or better algorithm that doesn't have that phase.
Yes you can, and Go has done exactly that.
Realize the "log" api is bad? Make "log/slog". Realize the "rand" api is bad? Make "rand/v2". Realize the "image/draw" api is bad? Make "golang.org/x/image/draw". Realize the "ioutil" package is bad? Move all the functions into "io".
Te stdlib already has at least 3 different patterns for duplicating API functionality with minor backwards-incompatible changes, and you can just do that and mark the old things as deprecated, but support it forever. Easy enough.
> mark the old things as deprecated, but support it forever
Is that 'supported'? A library that uses a callback that exists in 'log' but not in 'slog'; it'll compile forever, but it'll never work.
'Compiles but doesn't work' does not count as stable in my book. It's honestly worse than removing the API: both break, but one of them is noticed when the break happens.
I think “the fifth revision of that URL routing library that everyone uses” is a much less common case than “crate tried to explore a problem space, five years later a new crate thinks it can improve upon the solution”, which is what Rust’s conservatism really helps prevent. When you bake a particular crate into std, competitor crates now have a lot of inertia to overcome; when they're all third-party, the decision is not “add a crate?” but “replace a crate?” which is more palatable.
Letting an API evolve in a third-party crate also provides more accurate data on its utility; you get a lot of eyes on the problem space and can try different (potentially breaking) solutions before landing on consensus. Feedback during a Rust RFC is solicited from a much smaller group of people with less real-world usage.
The dependency creep keeps on happening in web frameworks where ever you look.
I was thinking of this quote from the article:
> Take it or leave it, but the web is dynamic by nature. Most of the work is serializing and deserializing data between different systems, be it a database, Redis, external APIs, or template engines. Rust has one of the best (de)serialization libraries in my opinion: serde. And yet, due to the nature of safety in Rust, I’d find myself writing boilerplate code just to avoid calling .unwrap(). I’d get long chain calls of .ok_or followed by .map_err. I defined a dozen of custom error enums, some taking other enums, because you want to be able to handle errors properly, and your functions can’t just return any error.
I was thinking: This is so much easier in Haskell.
Rather than chains of `ok_or()` and `map_err()` you use the functor interface
Rust:
``` call_api("get_people").map_or("John Doe", |v| get_first_name(v)).map_or(0, |v| get_name_frequency(v)) ```
Haskell:
``` get_first_name . get_name_frequency <$> callApi "get_people" ```
It's just infinitely more readable and using the single `<$>` operator spares you an infinite number of `map_or` and `ok_or` and other error handling.
However, having experience in large commercial Haskell projects, I can tell you the web apps also suffer from the dreaded dependency explosion. I know of one person who got fired from a project due to no small fact that building the system he was presented with took > 24 hours when a full build was triggered, and this happened every week. He was on an older system, and the company failed to provide him with something newer, but ultimately it is a failing of the "everything and the kitchen sink" philosophy at play in dependency usage.
I don't have a good answer for this. I think aggressive dependency reduction and tracking transitive dependency lists is one step forward, but it's only a philosophy rather than a system.
Maybe the ridiculous answer is to go back to php.
Rust has trouble supporting higher-kinded types like Functor (even though an equivalent feature is available, namely Generic Associated Types) due to the distinctions it makes between owned and referenced data that have no equivalent in Haskell. Whether these higher abstractions can still be used elegantly despite that complexity is something that should be explored via research, this whole area is not ready for feature development.
24 hours? is the haskel compiler written in javascript running in a python js-interpreter written in bash?
php is the only popular language that regularly removes insane legacy cruft (to be fair, they have more insane cruft than almost any other language to begin with).
Same. That’s why Go is such a great tool.
I've found Go's standard library to be really unfortunate compared to rust.
When I update the rust compiler, I do so with very little fear. My code will still work. The rust stdlib backwards compatible story has been very solid.
Updating the Go compiler, I also get a new stdlib, and suddenly I get a bunch of TLS version deprecation, implicit http2 upgrades, and all sorts of new runtime errors which break my application (and always at runtime, not compiletime). Bundling a large standard library with the compiler means I can't just update the tls package or just update the image package, I have to take it or leave it with the whole thing. It's annoying.
They've decided the go1 promise means "your code will still compile, but it will silently behave differently, like suddenly 'time1 == time2' will return a different result, or 'http.Server' will use a different protocol", and that's somehow backwards compatible.
I also find the go stdlib to have so many warts now that it's just painful. Don't use "log", use "log/slog", except the rest of the stdlib that takes a logger uses "log.Logger" because it predates "slog", so you have to use it. Don't use the non-context methods (like 'NewRequest' is wrong, use 'NewRequestWithContext', don't use net.Dial, etc), except for all the places context couldn't be bolted on.
Don't use 'image/draw', use 'golang.org/x/image/draw' because they couldn't fix some part of it in a backwards compatible way, so you should use the 'x/' package. Same for syscall vs x/unix. But also, don't use 'golang.org/x/net/http2' because that was folded into 'net/http', so there's not even a general rule of "use the x package if it's there", it's actually "keep up with the status of all the x packages and sometimes use them instead of the stdlib, sometimes use the stdlib instead of them".
Go's stdlib is a way more confusing mess than rust. In rust, the ecosystem has settled on one logging library interface, not like 4 (log, slog, zap, logrus). In rust, updates to the stdlib are actually backwards compatible, not "oh, yeah, sha1 certs are rejected now if you update the compiler for better compile speeds, hope you read the release notes".
Man, I've been using Go as my daily driver since 2012 and I think I can count the number of breaking changes I've run into on one finger, and that was a critical security vulnerability. I have no doubt there have been others, but I've not had the misfortune of running into them.
> Don't use "log", use "log/slog", except the rest of the stdlib that takes a logger uses "log.Logger" because it predates "slog", so you have to use it.
What in the standard library takes a logger at all? I don't think I've ever passed a logger into the standard library.
> the ecosystem has settled on one logging library interface, not like 4 (log, slog, zap, logrus)
I've only seen slog since slog was added to the standard library. Pretty sure I've seen logrus or similar in the Kubernetes code, but that predated slog by a wide margin and anyway I don't recall seeing _any_ loggers in library code.
> In rust, the ecosystem has settled on one logging library interface
I mean, in Rust everyone has different advice on which crates to use for error handling and when to use each of them. You definitely don't have _more standards_ in the Rust ecosystem.
> I don't think I've ever passed a logger into the standard library.
`net/http.Server.ErrorLog` is the main (only?) one, though there's a lot of third-party libraries that take one.
> I've only seen slog since slog was added to the standard library
Most go libraries aren't updated yet, in fact I can't say I've seen any library using slog yet. We're clearly interfacing with different slices of the go ecosystem.
> in Rust everyone has different advice on which crates to use for error handling and when to use each of them. You definitely don't have _more standards_ in the Rust ecosystem.
They all are still using the same error type, so it interoperates fine. That's like saying "In go, every library has its own 'type MyError struct { .. }' that implements error, so go has more standards because each package has its own concrete error types", which yeah, that's common... The rust libraries like 'thiserror' and such are just tooling to do that more ergonomically than typing out a bunch of structs by hand.
Even if one dependency in rust uses hand-typed error enums and another uses thiserror, you still can just 'match' on the error in your code or such.
On the other hand, in Go you end up having to carefully read through each dependency's code to figure out if you need to be using 'errors.Is' or 'errors.As', and with what types, but with no help from the type-system since all errors are idiomatically type-erased.
With Go it's good to keep in mind the Proverbs, which includes this gem:
Good luck, if little copying is ICU based localization.
Honestly this is one of the biggest reasons I stick with Elixir. Between Elixir’s standard library, the BEAM/OTP, and Phoenix (with Ecto)—- I honestly have very few dependencies for web projects. I rarely, at this point, find the need to add anything to new projects except for maybe Mox (mocking library) and Faker (for generating bits of test data). And now that the Jason (JSON) library has been more or less integrated into OTP I don’t even have to pull it in. Elixir dev experience is truly unmatched (IMHO) these days.
the idea of one language to rule them all is very compelling. it’s been promised a lot, and now everyone hates Java.
but the truth is that Rust is not meant for everything. UI is an abstraction layer that is very human and dynamic. and i can come and say, “well, we can hide that dynamism with clever graph composition tricks” à la Elm, React, Compose, etc, but the machinery that you have to build for even the simplest button widget in almost every Rust UI toolkit is a mess of punctuation, with things like lifetimes and weird state management systems. you end up building a runtime when what you want is just the UI. that’s what higher level languages were made for. of course data science could be done in Rust as well, but is the lifetime of the file handle you’re trying to open really what you’re worried about when doing data analysis?
i think Rust has a future in the UI/graphics engine space, but you have to be pretty stubborn to use it for your front end.
Rust is "Jack of all trades, master of some".
There are real advantages to choosing a jack of all trades language for everything; for example it makes it easier for an engineer on one part of your project to help out on a different part of your project.
But it sounds like the OP didn't get any of the benefits of "jack of all trades", nor did he choose a field where Rust is "master of some".
Lisp is the master of all. Or it would be except "Parens? Eugh! Brotha, eugh!"
Better title: "Farewell, Rust for Web"
Yes. This is one of the things that drives me nuts about a lot of titles on here: the context like “for the web” changes how it’s is interpreted a great deal. I see the same thing when I see posts about other languages and AI and such. Context matters versus making it sound like a broad, general statement. Alas, the broad, general statements likely get more engagement..
Agreed! The context matters a lot. Rust is a great language, but using it for the web is a poor choice just like using JS outside the web is a poor choice. Programming languages all have domains where they do well or poorly, and trying to make a single language work for all cases is a fool's errand.
Ok, we'll use that above. Thanks!
Yeah Astro is a great choice for a static or mostly static website. Moving to Astro is not a slight on any other language or framework.
Aiui they are also migrating their backend api(s) from rust to node. They were already using astro with rust on the backend (after dropping ssr with tera).
I'm a heavy Rust user and fan, but I'd never pick Rust for web. There are way more mature ecosystems out there to choose from. Why would you waste "innovation tokens" in a Rust-based web application?
I enjoyed using Rust/WASM for a web application I made. Once I got the build step figured out, which took a week, the application worked like I wanted right away.
I was trying to build an HTML generator in Rust and got pretty far, but I don't think I'll ever be happy with the API unless I learn some pretty crazy macro stuff, which I don't want. For the latter project, the "innovation tokens" really rings true for me, I spent months on the HTML gen for not much benefit.
For a web backend? Rust is pretty mature there, it doesn't even feel like an innovation token - it's by my favorite thing to use Rust for.
You have very mature webservers, asyncio, ORMs, auth, etc., it's very easy to write, and the type safety helps a ton.
In 2020 it might have taken some innovation tokens, but the only things that require a ton less (for web backend) are probably Java, python, and node.js, and they all have their unique pain points that it doesn't seem at all crazy?
Good to know! You probably saved me a lot of pain.
due to the nature of safety in Rust, I’d find myself writing boilerplate code just to avoid calling .unwrap(). I’d get long chain calls of .ok_or followed by .map_err. I defined a dozen of custom error enums, some taking other enums, because you want to be able to handle errors properly, and your functions can’t just return any error.
This can be a double edged sword. Yes, languages like python and typescript/JavaScript will let you not catch an exception, which can be convenient. But that also often leads to unexpected errors popping up in production.
Often is not the word I'd use, from my experience.
The times something like that happened to me AND wasn't a trivial fix can be counted on half a hand. A tradeoff I'd take any day to not have to deal with rust all of the time.
I want to address this one point:
> Similar thing can be said about writing SQL. I was really happy with using sqlx, which is a crate for compile-time checked SQL queries. By relying on macros in Rust, sqlx would execute the query against a real database instance in order to make sure that your query is valid, and the mappings are correct. However, writing dynamic queries with sqlx is a PITA, as you can’t build a dynamic string and make sure it’s checked during compilation, so you have to resort to using non-checked SQL queries. And honestly, with kysely in Node.js, I can get a similar result, without the need to have a connection to the DB, while having ergonomic query builder to build dynamic queries, without the overhead of compilation time.
I've used sqlx, and its alright, but I've found things much easier after switching to sea-orm. Sea-orm has a wonderful query builder that makes it feel like you are writing SQL. Whereas with sqlx you end up writing Rust that generates SQL strings, ie re-inventing query builders.
You also get type checking; define your table schema as a struct, and sea-orm knows what types your columns are. No active connection required. This approach lets you use Rust types for fields, eg Email from the email crate or Url from the url crate, which lets you constrain fields even further than what is easy to do at the DB layer.
ORMs tend to get a bad reputation for how some ORMs implement the active record pattern. For example, you might forget something is an active record and write something like "len(posts)" in sqlalchemy and suddenly you are counting records by pulling them from the DB in one by one. I haven't had this issue with sea-orm, because it is very clear about what is an active record and what is not, and it is very clear when you are making a request out to the DB. For me, it turns out 90% of the value of an ORM is the query builder.
sqlx doesn't build queries, or at least it minimally builds them. Which I think is the thing the OP is complaining about.
And, IMO, making dynamic queries harder is preferable. Dynamic queries are inherently unsafe. Sometimes necessary, however you have to start considering things like sql injection attacks with dynamic queries.
This isn't to poo poo sea-orm. I'm just saying that sqlx's design choice to make dynamic queries hard is a logical choice from a safety standpoint.
> And, IMO, making dynamic queries harder is preferable. Dynamic queries are inherently unsafe. Sometimes necessary, however you have to start considering things like sql injection attacks with dynamic queries.
Depends on what you mean by "dynamic query". You are dealing with injection attacks as soon as you start taking user input. Most useful user facing applications take user input.
In a simple case it might be "SELECT * FROM posts WHERE title LIKE '%hello world%', where "hello world" is a user specified string. This is easy with sqlx. Where things get more difficult is if you want to optionally add filters for things like date posted, score of the post, author, etc... That makes the query dynamic in a way that can't be solved by simply including a bind.
That's where sea-orm shines over sqlx IMO. sqlx will force you to do something like
```
let mut my_query = "SELECT * FROM posts WHERE title LIKE '%' + $1 + '%'";
let mut my_binds = vec![args.keyword];
if let Some(date) = args.date {
}...
```
Your building a string and tracking binds. It gets messy. A good query builder like seaorm has lets you do something this:
```
let mut query = Posts::find().filter(Column::title::like(args.keyword));
if let Some(date) = args.date {
}```
This pays off as your queries get more complicated. It pushes the string manipulation and bookkeeping into a library, which can be more thoroughly tested.
It also lets you pass around typed partial queries, eg in the example above query might be returned from a function, which helps you build more modular code.
I agree with what you are saying, this is exactly what I was thinking when I said it was sometimes necessary. It's just not preferable IMO.
For this specific example, the better way is something like this
But I get how this would be untenable if as the number of query param combos goes up. In that case dynamic SQL really is the only sane way to handle something like that.They didn't make them hard by design, I think, it's just the limitations of the current API and prioritisation. Dynamic queries are possible, just not trivial
Nope, it really was part of the design [1]
[1] https://github.com/launchbadge/sqlx/issues/333#issuecomment-...
It's a throwaway comment in the article, but I feel it's important to push back on: HTML is very definitely a programming language, by any reasonable definition of "programming language".
Edit to add: It might not be an imperative language, but having written some HTML and asked the computer to interpret it, the computer now has a programmed capability, determined by what was written, that's repeatable and that was not available apart from the HTML given. QED.
How would one do an if condition or enumerate a list in HTML alone? For that functionality you need another language to generate/manipulate the HTML.. not to mention interpreting HTML for display.
HTML is a markup language, it's even in the name... but it's not a complete programming language by any stretch.
It's not Turing-complete, and as you say, it's a markup language and it's not general purpose. But neither is a necessary component of "programming language".
Ifs and enumerations are a simpler requirement than Turing completeness. They're an even more basic version of giving the computer logic to evaluate.
Exactly... it's pretty much what I consider the minimum for a "programming language" is that you need to be able to have basic state and be able to make use of state.
For that matter, it wouldn't take much to get HTML to have those features... though the DOM, JS and even WASM do so well, we don't need it generally speaking.
Please explain how your edit doesn't apply to a .txt file
agreed, it's a hill i am very willing to die on too.
I would assume today that maybe Dioxus or Leptos would be considered. Though that would be the "all in" approach on Rust front to back... it wouldn't really reduce some of the handling conditions levied in the article though.
I find C# can be a really good middle ground on the backend (not a blazor fan)... the syntax and expressiveness improves with every release. You can burrow as lot of patterns from the likes of Go as well as FP approaches. What I don't care for are excessively complex (ie: "Enterprise") environments where complexity is treated like a badge of honor instead of the burden of spaghetti that it is in practice.
The TS/React ecosystem is so mature, it's hard for Rust to compete with it. My optimal stack is currently: Rust on the backend, Typescript/React for web with OpenAPI for shared types.
Why not Angilar? React and Angular are not worth comparing directly, but why not use Angular for the web interface?
React and its ecosystem is a pile of garbage perpetuated by industry inertia. UseState, useMemo, useThisAndThat where you have to guess whether that dependency will cause a re-render? Or 20 different routers, state managers, query builders? I'm not even talking about html-in-ts with `!!a && (<div>...</div>)` A stodgy, bloated, overhyped and misused monstrosity, that's what React is.
Running rust in wasm works really well. I feel like I'm the world's biggest cheerleader for it, but I was just amazed at how well it works. The one annoying thing is using web APIs through rust - you can do it with web-sys and js-sys, but it's rarely as ergonomic as it is in javascript. I usually end up writing wrapper libraries that make it easy, sometimes even easier than javascript (e.g. in rust I can use weblocks with RAII)
It does work well logically but performance is pretty bad. I had a nontrivial Rust project running on Cloudflare Workers, and CPU time very often clocked 10-60ms per request. This is >50x what the equivalent JS worker probably would've clocked. And in that environment you pay for CPU time...
The rust-js layer can be slow. But the actual rust code is much faster than the equivalent JS in my experience. My project would not be technically possible with javascript levels of performance
the JS layer is slow, indeed, but it shouldn't be that much slower that it meaningfully impacts frontend apps
A demonstration of that by the creator of Leptos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KtotxNAwME
That's fair and makes sense. In my case it was just a regular web app where the only reason for it being in Rust was that I like the language.
did you profile what made it so slow specifically? sounds waaaaay worse than I would expect
I did. I don't remember the specifics too well but a lot of it was cold starts. So just crunching the massive wasm binary was a big part of it. Otherwise it was the matchit library and js interop marshalling taking the rest of the time.
I'm doing this now and it's mostly great but the openapi generators are not good. At least the Typescript ones produce confusing function signatures and invalid type syntax in some cases.
I looove Rust for the backend.
I've supported backends in typescript, python, Java, and Rust.
Rust pages me the least at night. Sleep is beautiful.
Rust for Web is awesome for adding control interfaces etc to other programs who have a different primary purpose.
And even then I do it by serving JSON API's and not by serving HTML.
Rust shines in user-space systems-level applications (databases, cloud infrastructure, etc.) but definitely feels a bit out of place in more business-logic heavy applications.
> And the occasional struggles with typescript where the runtime seems to be changing too often; is it ts-node? tsx? tsm? The built-in typescript runtime in node? deno? bun?
This whole paragraph is so true. The last couple of years have been pretty rough in Node land.
rescript [https://rescript-lang.org/] would make a nice middle ground between rust and typescript
Well, yep. People underappreciate the Typescript/JS ecosystem.
Typescript is pretty type-safe, and it's perfectly integrated with hot code reload, debuggers, and all the usual tools. Adding transpilation in that flow only creates friction.
That's also why things like Blazor are going nowhere. C# is nicer than Typescript, but the additional friction of WASM roundtrips just eats all the advantage.
I think the big thing keeping Blazor back is that C# doesn't work well with WASM. It was built at a time when JIT-optimized languages with a larger runtime were in-vogue. That's fine in a lot of cases, but it means that C# isn't well suited for shipping a small amount of code over the wire to browsers. A Blazor payload is going to end up being over 4MB. If you use ahead of time compilation, that can balloon to 3x more. The fact that C# offers internal pointers makes it incompatible with the current WASM GC implementation.
Blazor performance is around 3x slower than React, it'll use 15-20x more RAM, and it's 20x larger over the wire. I think if Blazor could match React performance, it'd be quite popular. As it stands, it's hard to seriously consider it for something where users have other options.
Microsoft has been working to make C#/.NET better for AOT compilation, but it's tough. Java has been going through this too. I don't really know what state it's at, but (for example) when you have a lot of libraries doing runtime code generation, that's fine when you have a JIT compiler running the program. Any new code generated at runtime can be run and optimized like any other code that it's running.
People do underappreciate the JS/TS ecosystem, but I think there are other reasons holding back stuff running on WASM. With Blazor, performance, memory usage, and payload size are big issues. With Flutter and Compose Multiplatform, neither is giving you a normal HTML page and instead just renders onto a canvas. With Rust, projects like Dioxus are small and relatively new. And before WASM GC and the shared heap, there was always more overhead for anything doing DOM stuff. WASM GC is also pretty new - it's only been a little over a year since all the major browsers supported it. We're really in the infancy of other languages in the browser.
IDK, I still miss Rust's strictness and exhaustive enum matching.
I don't know about what other strictness you're referring to but exhaustive enum matching is common check in most TS stacks via eslint. Yea, it's not builtin, just saying there's a solution and it's super common.
last time I researched enums in TS for a project, they were a mess such that it was better not to use enums in the first place
You can actually have it built-in (via default case in 'switch' statements having a 'never()' statement). But it's less powerful than Rust's.
Or you don't use the defualt case and rely on definite assignment analysis or checks for returns in every code path.
I find the never type in TS actually being a proper bottom type + having control-flow based types vastly superior to what rust offers.
As someone who went in the opposite direction from Node to Rust, I feel like OP is just trading one set of problems for another set of substantially worse problems. I guess the grass is always greener in the other ecosystem ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Idk, it just feels like OP chose all the wrong approaches with Rust, including using a separate language and ecosystem for the frontend, which is where most of the friction comes from. For example, Dioxus is a React clone that is somehow leagues better than React (and Next.js, too), and it has hot-reloading that brings compiles down to subsecond times, which makes building UI with it just as productive as with Node / Vite etc. I use it for server side code as well and it's great. Compilation times can be an issue with Rust, it's something I miss from Go, but there are ways to improve on it, and just being smart about what deps you include, avoiding overuse of macros etc can make a difference. I know these things were not around when OP started using Rust for their application, but they are around now.
Node and TS are quite frankly inferior to Rust in most ways. Bad language, ecosystem full of buggy unmaintained packages with the worse security profile of all the common languages, no unified build tooling that seems to break your project every 6 months, constant churn of blessed frameworks and tools, an stdlib that is not much more comprehensive than Rust's and outright broken in some ways, at least three different approaches to modules (esm, commonjs, umd, and more...?), I could go on an on. There is a reason why everyone seemingly reinvents the wheel in that ecosystem over and over again -- the language and platform is fundamentally not capable of achieving peoples goals, and every solution developed comes with massive tradeoffs that the next iteration attempts to solve, but that just creates additional issues or regressions for future attempts to tackle.
I've been using Rust with Dioxus and was completely mind blown when I started with it. With barely knowing any Rust (just React) I was able to jump right in and build with it, somehow it was more intuitive to me than most modern JS full stack frameworks. It seemingly already has most if not all of the features that similar JS frameworks have been developing for years, and because it's written in Rust things like conditional compilation are built into the language instead of being a third party babel plugin. That helps to remove a ton of friction. And it's trivial to build those same apps for desktop and mobile as well, something that's basically not possible with the JS frameworks.
Even stuff like websockets, go try to implement a type safe web socket connection with a server and client in Next.js or Astro. You'll need a ws library, something like Zod for validation, etc. In Rust it's just:
I think this is spot on. I've used Iced and Dioxus and both are great. I do take the author's point that the actual UI code, even in Dioxus, is verbose. It is. And that's a trade off I'm willing to make for guaranteed correctness.
I haven't used Iced but re. Dioxus, I don't know if it's necessary more verbose conceptually. One of the most frustrating things with React is handling async updates, and while Rust's async story is conceptually difficult, it's ultimately much easier to reason about (imo). Like are we sure a comparable component in React would be any less verbose?
Imo the RSX here is much less verbose than JSX. Inline match statement, inline if statement, inline for loop, .take(3) compared to `Array.from({ length: 3 }).map((_, i) => urls[i]))`, etc etc. This gives you automatic cancellation of the future, whereas with React you would need a third party library like React Query, and then manually abort requests in the asynchronous function with an abort signal -- in Rust, you get that for free. You also get data validation for free, instead of needing eg. Zod for manual runtime validation.This is oddly timed in as much as one of the big success stories I've heard from a friend is their new practice of having Claude Code develop in Rust, than translate that to WebAssembly.
That seems much more like the future than embracing Node... <emoji here>
If you’re making a web app your fancy rust wasm module still has to interface with the dom, so you can’t escape that. Claude might offer you some fake simplicity on that front for awhile, but skeptical that’s it fully scalable
There are plenty of Rust frameworks that handle this interface for you, including calling Rust functions from JS and JS functions from Rust.
I run Rust/Axum for something that's less a web app and more a living system — autonomous agents, real-time state (pulse, mood, health metrics), a frontend that shifts based on internal conditions rather than just user input.
For this kind of use case, Rust's type system isn't overhead — it's the reason things stay coherent when multiple agents are running concurrently. The error handling that feels like boilerplate in a CRUD app actually matters when a missed unwrap means your system silently stops working at 3am.
The article reads to me like someone building a content site in Rust, which yeah, is painful for no reason. But I'd push back on the broader framing — the web is more than blogs and dashboards. When your backend does meaningful autonomous work beyond serializing JSON, Rust pays for itself.
This comment sounds like an AI wrote it.