> Obviously your experience doesn't involve budgeting or hiring developers.
Ah, that is very true! :) I forgot to make clear in my comment that I wasn't referring to that bit at all.
I only participated in the hiring/interview process, but that's as far as my hiring experience goes.
> The original poster claimed that Rust can save money by letting managers hire junior devs to replace senior C++ developers.
Ah, I didn't interpret it that way. I thought the point they wanted to get across was that it's easier to get the same for less—not in terms of monetary cost, but in terms of less mental effort with regards to context/knowledge about the language itself.
But, the hiring point you're addressing can be inferred from their comment, too.
I think I agree with you on that... It probably is "easier" to hire C++ developers, since there's an older and bigger market for them.
I think Rust developers are in an interesting position right now that they're not as abundant as other developers, since Rust is probably still in "early adoption" stage. So they can use that as leverage in salary negotiations, maybe? But it also comes at a cost of a much smaller job market for them, too.
> I think Rust developers are in an interesting position right now that they're not as abundant as other developers, since Rust is probably still in "early adoption" stage. So they can use that as leverage in salary negotiations, maybe? But it also comes at a cost of a much smaller job market for them, too.
No, you are viewing that from a technological perspective - what you assume only holds if "Rust" was a requirement.
If staffing a project is much harder (and maybe more expensive) when using Rust as language, then Rust will not be chosen if C++ is an option.
Ah, that is very true! :) I forgot to make clear in my comment that I wasn't referring to that bit at all.
I only participated in the hiring/interview process, but that's as far as my hiring experience goes.
> The original poster claimed that Rust can save money by letting managers hire junior devs to replace senior C++ developers.
Ah, I didn't interpret it that way. I thought the point they wanted to get across was that it's easier to get the same for less—not in terms of monetary cost, but in terms of less mental effort with regards to context/knowledge about the language itself.
But, the hiring point you're addressing can be inferred from their comment, too.
I think I agree with you on that... It probably is "easier" to hire C++ developers, since there's an older and bigger market for them.
I think Rust developers are in an interesting position right now that they're not as abundant as other developers, since Rust is probably still in "early adoption" stage. So they can use that as leverage in salary negotiations, maybe? But it also comes at a cost of a much smaller job market for them, too.