Number of openings is very much not the same as the number of jobs that exist; the article conflates the two, but it's entirely possible that many devs just don't want to work for crypto companies, so crypto job openings stay unfilled (and therefore visible) for longer than other types of Rust positions.
I think you have a point. But the number of openings is a way easier thing to measure than the number of jobs, because you can just scrape public job boards. I think the goal of the post was to bring at least some data to the many anecdotes about Rust being so permeated by crypto (and personal experience agrees with that).
Maybe it’s because crypto actually needs the advanced features and correctness that Rust provides, while language doesn’t matter for most of your basic CRUD jobs so people use JS or whatever
Is it a hack if the contract programmatically allows you to do it?
Or is it a hack if you didn't understand the scope of your contract as you wrote it, and are now upset someone executed on it in a way you didn't expect?
If you choose to go through the effort, Haskell can be shown to be provably correct -- that is in a mathematical sense of the term "prove" -- similar to Ada/SPARK.
I think Haskell jobs aren't common because Haskell isn't widely used. Rust is much more widely used but it's also much newer so most uses are from people already in companies starting new projects. Most of those projects are probably still minor and haven't got to the point of needing whole new employees to work just on them.
Where I work we started a fairly big Rust project a couple of years ago and only recently put "Rust" on a job advert.
# job advertisements for 'rust' in the title != Company's searching for Rust Developers
# job advertisements for rust != # of developers using rust for non crypto shit.
I'd just like to point out those facts for people devolving the conversation in to all crypto is rust and rust is crypto and they will burn together.
Also, how about the fact that fast, concurrent and safe is exactly what the blockchain needs? Everyone who's coded in solidity (Javascript) or vyper (Python) for the ETH ecosystem knows that the constraints of the blockchain show those languages flaws(Difference?).
I think 'bullshit' is a little of an overstatement. I agree it's not a definite answer at all but I think it's quite an approximation of how the job market in Rust looks like.
Moreover, it's not a rant against it, we addressed a common belief within the Rust community without stating a judgement whether it's good or bad thing.
Sure, but there's a prevalent theme within Rust community that its job market is overweighted towards blockchain. I'm not sure if that's the case with other langs out there.
My impression is that the crypto companies face scepticism when their recruiters reach out. So why not try to counteract that with the huge enthusiasm for rust
Lots of Rust animosity in here. What's wrong with it? In places where C/C++ has been the standard, Rust is many times more fun, quick, and easy. It lets you implement higher level control flows (iterators, recursion, multithreading, maps) much more easily and reliably than the aforementioned languages while still allowing for byte level access when required. Its library system is a billion times more ergonomic than C or C++, though I wish it allowed for easier dynamic linking to system libs (just because that's historically the way libraries have been part of distributions). These are all good qualities. It does have weighty syntax and compile times are slow, but so does C++. I can't speak about whether it's really better than a language like Python or Haskell, but I don't think Rust targets the same problem space.
Heh. Didn't think about it that way. I'll remember to put "fake money" in quotes next time.
However, the crypto people genuinely believe that they have something worth stealing and that Rust helps keep what they have from getting stolen. That is a direct downvote by highly motivated and self-interested actors against C/C++.
Cryptobubble definitely had a part in subsidizing early expansion of Rust's crate ecosystem and first jobs, but I think at this point Rust has grown and matured so much that it's not dependent on any single thing.
I know Cloudflare is depending heavily on Rust in its services. AWS is invested too. It's used at Dropbox, ByteDance, Canonical. It has already made its way into being part of infrastructure in many companies, and there aren't many alternatives for it, so there's momentum to keep it going.
Even in this sample of explicitly Rust-specific jobs that "most" is already close to a half, and the sample isn't including jobs that use Rust alongside other languages (which in my experience is common, since Rust is good for libraries/plug-ins/components/low-level utilities).
That would be really sad, I’m not sure why you would say something like that. You can express dislike about (part of) the rust community but why would you wish Rust to lose traction? Even if you don’t like or care about the language it is a fantastic addition to the world of programming languages (even just from a research/academic/intellectual point of view), and push for a healthy competition in the world of system programming, something that benefits all of us.
> It would be funny if the crypto bubble burst and took the rust bubble with it.
It's probably not likely at all. While Rust's correctness guarantees through ownership checking can be approximated by other programming languages through garbage collectors, it is not a widely understood fact that Rust mutability checking is also a great tool for multi-threaded programming, very challenging to get right even by veteran programmers. On top of that, Rust not only features syntax that's quite modern and ergonomic (analogous to Swift) with elements of functional programming, but Rust also offers modern abstraction-based programming constructs through traits (analogous to Swift Protocol-Oriented Programming). Even the ever C-advocating Linus Torvalds has already agreed to allow Rust as a second language within the Linux kernel. IMHO, Rust is not just a bubble - it will probably only keep growing in popularity.
Each crypto market crash has only been a temporary set back. Market cap could drop 75% and still bounce back within the year.
The hyper-competitive and trustless nature of crypto rewards the most elite projects staffed by +4 SD minds. It’s like how Quant funds are a darwinian bloodbath.
The only way crypto is going away for good is replacement by vastly better technology or assets.
Crypto is just what you get in a zero interest rate world. That's how it started (fear of money inflation).
With interest rates in steady state rates, people would choose wisely if it's better to stash money into a regular savings account or into void of cryptoschemes with occassional jackpot.
I agree - the replacement is better assets, such as cash. When it is priced reasonably again.
Those are good points. I haven’t seen much discussion of interest rates in crypto circles even with all the shady 10% APY staking programs designed to compete with savings accounts.
Maybe because most of the new "tech" startups/jobs -- that care more about language than other startup areas -- are in "crypto"/Web3?
P.S. Also, as a cryptographer: writing "high level" cryptography code in anything besides Rust is an unnecessary pain honestly. It just makes the work saner and manageable. Think of it like writing C with another set of eyes looking over you for mistakes.
It's a valid point, however I don't feel like there's a lot of discussion in e.g. python or JavaScript crowd around it. The post addresses the common concern within Rust community by approximating an answer to the question in title.
