>Noooo rust is so autistically verbose and unusable.
Don't exaggerate, anon. It has lots of nice type inference, syntax sugar, and abstractions that can result in very clean, simplified code. In terms of verbosity and complexity, it is somewhere between C and C++.
>I dont want to deal with lifetime autism again just to use the conceptually very simple borrowing system.
You learn to really appreciate the lifetime stuff if you understand that it goes hand-in-hand with good performance design. Read this:
>Creating a monolith for software that potentially has to calculate entire economies is just putting shards of glass in your own shoes.
The actual calculations are really fast. For instance, my benchmarks showed that the labor time calculation takes .7 seconds on 1 million products. And that's single-threaded. Cockshott's stuff is fast too. Our initial data sets will likely have less than a thousand items. And again, these parts of the program are not coupled, so splitting them off into separate services would be easy down the road.
>I would prefer .net over Java because in .net we have amazing, smooth, easy interop between F#, C#, which allows us to write in functional what is usefull to write functional and procedural what is procedural.
I've heard good things about both of these, but IDK how many people here have any experience with .net stuff, and often it's not as well-supported on Linux (EG, it's not in Arch's main repos).
>We have fast enough computers, correctness >>>> speed
It's possible to have both correctness and speed though, and the meme of "just throw more CPUs at it" is not acceptable for ecological and cybernetic communism IMO. This attitude is why modern computers are so fucking laggy at basic tasks even though they are basically supercomputers.
Case in point. We would at very least want the big calculations to be in Rust. Though I will point out, many of the "2 billion individual goods" are actually redundant. There are 100,000 results for "coffee mug" on Amazon, but most of them are the same damn porcelain cup! Realistically speaking, I think the number of genuinely unique goods is definitely below a billion, probably in the low to mid millions.
>lazyness can be a godsend with shit like that.
Not really, I don't think the harmony planning or labor calculations really lend themselves to it.
>like C++ if the smart pointers were the default
Rust has a separate smart pointer type, Box. Most of the code you write in Rust follows a paradigm of "Everything is a move or a reference." Not completely comparable to smart pointers.