Go is definitely used a lot more outside of google as of late.
Anecdotally I would say where a lot of companies would have used Java in the past they are now turning to go for their server-side/backend service implementations.
On a more serious note, have you thought about trying to aim lightning at the same spot again and write another book about implementing something most programmers take for granted?
I've definitely thought about writing a third book. I don't know if it would be about "something most programmers take for granted". I'm more interested in writing about whatever happens to excite me the most at that time.
I may be projecting, but I feel like the kind of person to get excited about crafting interpreters wod also get excited about crafting databases or OSes.
It is a tool for checking that your unsafe code doesn't cause UB. It doesn't really settle anything, but the commenter uses it as a gotcha to say "rust is no better than C, because you still can compile code that contains UB".
> Well, the general 'Rewrite All in Rust' consensus is that it solves all general programming problems, ever.
a) There is no such consensus. The actual consensus is that even if Rust solved all problems, it would not be financially feasible to rewrite pretty much any substantial project.
b) While Rust does solve many problems, it is nowhere close to solving all safety, otherwise there would be no `unsafe` keyword. Alas, fully proving safety in an impure, turing-complete language is mathematically impossible.
c) The only reason you would think that there's some sort of woke Rust lobby, is if you spend way too much time subjecting yourself to opinions of literal sixteen year olds on twitter.
