What's this about?
LinearUncle: "I have a strong feeling that if you want to learn a programming language now, it has to be Rust. Almost all software will slowly be rewritten in Rust — it is already happening — and just being able to read Rust syntax may be a huge advantage." dotey splits it in two: Rust being valuable and important, agreed; Rust being the language to *learn*, not necessarily. Rust has a relatively high barrier and beginners hit a lot of frustration, so start with something that is easy for *you* and gives fast positive feedback, because being able to stick with it is what matters most. Programming languages share a great deal, and if you are fluent in Python, TypeScript or Java you can write any language with AI's help, Rust included.
What is the actual disagreement?
Whether learning a language is about the language or about becoming a programmer. The first view treats it as picking the right investment — bet on where the industry is going. The second treats early learning as building the general model that transfers, in which case the specific syntax barely matters and the only thing that does is whether you keep going. The AI angle sharpens it: if a model can write unfamiliar syntax for you, then reading fluency and conceptual grounding matter more than any particular language's mastery.
What's the community saying?
- "Being able to read Rust may be a huge advantage" is the modest version of the claim, and it is much harder to argue with than the strong one.
- dotey's "learn what gives you fast positive feedback" is the pedagogically correct answer and the less exciting one.
- Both agree Rust matters; the disagreement is entirely about sequencing, which is the useful part.