4 ms·

No, but there is some overlap. Generally speaking, Rust puts safety above anything else. D is more pragmatic, expressive, and generally has better performance (

No, but there is some overlap. Generally speaking, Rust puts safety above anything else. D is more pragmatic, expressive, and generally has better performance (e.g. bounds checking is optional). I think D is a better choice anywhere memory safety and deterministic memory management are not the primary concern.

pcwalton 11y ago
Bounds checking is optional in Rust too. And I've never seen bounds checks show up in instruction-level profiling of Rust code, due to the way iterators work. Can you elaborate as to other ways Rust has worse performance?
- CyberShadow 11y ago
  > Bounds checking is optional in Rust too. Could've sworn I've read somewhere the Rust maintainers stated that Rust will never have a switch to disable bounds checking. Has this changed? > Can you elaborate as to other ways Rust has worse performance? I don't know of any other specifics, but benchmarks usually show D outperform Rust (and often enough, everything else), e.g.: https://togototo.wordpress.com/2013/07/23/benchmarking-level-generation-go-rust-haskell-and-d/ https://togototo.wordpress.com/2013/07/23/benchmarking-level... https://github.com/nsf/pnoise https://github.com/nsf/pnoise
  - CyberShadow 11y ago
    Here is the relevant thread: https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/rust-dev/2014-March/009214.html https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/rust-dev/2014-March/00921... In some cases, bounds checking doesn't make sense, e.g. in video games running on consoles.
    - pjmlp 11y ago
      > In some cases, bounds checking doesn't make sense, e.g. in video games running on consoles. As if it couldn't be used to exploit and pirate the games, get extra lifes, buy in-game items without paying, automate bots... "Many years later we asked our customers whether they wished us to provide an option to switch off these checks in the interests of efficiency on production runs. Unanimously, they urged us not to--they already knew how frequently subscript errors occur on production runs where failure to detect them could be disastrous. I note with fear and horror that even in 1980, language designers and users have not learned this lesson. In any respectable branch of engineering, failure to observe such elementary precautions would have long been against the law." - C.A.R Hoare Turing Award speech, 1980
      - CyberShadow 11y ago
        Pretty much everyone in the video games industry is going to disagree with this. Performance is the primary concern there, period. Languages that reject such ideas in favor of others simply will not be used, given a choice. Consoles also only run signed code, enforce NX, and mprotect doesn't exist, so there is very little in what can be exploited. > automate bots... This has nothing to do with memory safety.
        pcwalton 11y ago
        Again, bounds checking really doesn't show up in profiles. Iterators have none, and LLVM removes most of the ones that remain. It's really a non-issue.
        pjmlp 11y ago
        > Languages that reject such ideas in favor of others simply will not be used, given a choice. That is the key issue, "given a choice". I saw game developers being dragged into accepting C was replacing their beautiful Assembly, followed by game developers being dragged into accepting C++ was replacing their beautiful C. You can be pretty sure if tomorrow Sony, Apple, Nintendo, Google or Microsoft said "you must use language X", they would do it. So yeah, given the choice they can continue to lose money thanks to memory corruption exploits. Signed code and NX don't protect against memory corruption. One can use ROP to work around it.
      - krylon 11y ago
        Amen! A couple of years back, I worked at a company where I helped maintain and improve a couple of programs written in C, and words cannot express how much I wished for a compiler switch to get bounds-checking, even if it was just for testing and debugging... Garbage collection/memory management was never much of a problem, but those nasty little off-by-one errors causing the program to corrupt the heap (which of course did not make it crash until a while later, so the location of the crash was usually totally unrelated to where the actual bug was located... sigh) drove me nuts!
        p0nce 11y ago
  - pcwalton 11y ago
    > Could've sworn I've read somewhere the Rust maintainers stated that Rust will never have a switch to disable bounds checking. Has this changed? Not having a switch to disable bounds checking is not the same as not being able to disable bounds checking. > I don't know of any other specifics, but benchmarks usually show D outperform Rust (and often enough, everything else), e.g.: It's been years since I saw those benchmarks. Those are benchmarks of the built-in library random number generator. Rust uses a more secure random number generator by default than most of the other languages, so it will go slower. If you really want to benchmark random number generation, pick a faster but less secure algorithm.
    - CyberShadow 11y ago
      > Not having a switch to disable bounds checking is not the same as not being able to disable bounds checking. Not sure what you're getting at. Marking the entire program as unsafe is not realistic. Marking specific portions leaves a long tail of code that "rarely" runs, but still adds up. > Those are benchmarks of the built-in library random number generator. The levgen-benchmarks programs implement the XOR-shift RNG in both the Rust and D versions.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - pcwalton 11y ago
        > but still adds up. No, it doesn't. Bounds checks in cold code don't matter (and there aren't many to begin with). Even bounds checks in hot code frequently don't matter. Have you profiled Rust code and found bounds checks to be a problem? > The levgen-benchmarks programs implement the XOR-shift RNG in both the Rust and D versions. Oh, I see that they changed it. Still, that benchmark is from 2013 and doesn't compile anymore. It predates unboxed closures and many other performance improvements. And 15% is in the "different register allocation decisions will affect the outcome" range, where comparisons are fairly meaningless. The fact that D and Rust beat C doesn't mean that they're faster than C.
        11y ago
  - dbaupp 11y ago
    Rust has iterators which avoid the need for direct indexing in many uses of contiguous-memory storage, and hence avoid unnecessary bounds checks (just like D's ranges). When indexing is required, bounds checking can be disabled individually by indexing with `get_unchecked` (or `get_unchecked_mut`): http://doc.rust-lang.org/std/primitive.slice.html#method.get_unchecked http://doc.rust-lang.org/std/primitive.slice.html#method.get... In any case, when comparing language performance, it's generally good to avoid comparing backend performance, i.e. focus on the LLVM-based compilers in the pnoise benchmark. A GCC-based Rust compiler would almost certainly outperform the current LLVM-based one for that benchmark (as suggested by gcc vs. clang and gdc vs. ldc2). Of course, such a compiler doesn't currently exist, so if you care about getting your code to run as fast as possible right now, Rust isn't the best choice based on that benchmark, but Rust has several reasons that it's likely to outperform both C and D by default: - better aliasing information (than both C and D), so compilers can optimise more aggressively - lifetimes mean more aggressive stack allocation/ownership patterns can be used without risk (a bonus over C, and something that D solves via GC, which has its own upsides & downsides) - the type system has been designed to be particularly good at concurrency & parallelism, so again this can be used more aggressively and in more situations (e.g. libraries can expose interfaces that allow mutating data directly on the stack of other threads without risk of data races or dangling pointers)
    - aldanor 11y ago
      Rust iterators are a bit of a crutch IMO, until it's possible to return them unboxed; if you use them heavily you end up with types one paragraph long.
      - dbaupp 11y ago
        Yeah, it's annoying that one can't return them unboxed to be easily able to construct zero-overhead lazily-evaluated sequences, but that's entirely unrelated to their avoid-bounds-checks property. Instead of iterating over a range of indices and indexing, use the slice iterator, it's basically a drop-in replacement. The former can either be done with a manual loop & addition (which is not at all lazy and definitely can't be returned, i.e. Rust's current iterators are strictly more flexible), or it is done with the Range iterator. The two lazy forms are basically the same: let v: &[T] = ...; let x: iter::Map<ops::Range<usize>, _> = (0..n).map(|i| { let elem = &v[i]; // do stuff }) let y: iter::Map<slice::Iter<T>, _> = v.iter().map(|elem| { // do stuff });
yokohummer7 11y ago
> D is more pragmatic Being pragmatic is a very questionable claim. Its exact meaning varies from time to time, and a property that a certain people consider to be pragmatic can be considered to be not pragmatic by another people. It's mostly meaningless. For example, for embedded devices D is a no-go from the beginning. I'm not just saying the reliance on GC. D has a few ridiculous behavior that may cost significantly on the low resource devices, such as http://forum.dlang.org/thread/mr6bl7$26f5$1@digitalmars.com http://forum.dlang.org/thread/mr6bl7$26f5$1@digitalmars.com D is never pragmatic in this area. But of course, D may be pragmatic in other areas. > expressive D and Rust have different kinds of expressiveness. While D has much better compile-time metaprogramming, how do you express affine type in D? In Rust affine type is very fundamental and we can utilize it to define the exact meaning of our programs. > and generally has better performance (e.g. bounds checking is optional). What? How can a GC'ed language be faster than a non-GC'ed language? Besides simple numeric evaluation, D is generally more heap-allocation-heavy than Rust, so it can never beat Rust. After all, there's no point in Rust if it's slower than a GC'ed language. The benchmarks you linked are questionable too, as their results say D is faster than C. Are you really sure D can outperform C in general cases?
- rpedela 11y ago
  > How can a GC'ed language be faster than a non-GC'ed language? Besides simple numeric evaluation, D is generally more heap-allocation-heavy than Rust, so it can never beat Rust. I would be interested in benchmarks showing that. Do you have any?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - yokohummer7 11y ago
    Sorry, I don't have specific numbers. I was saying generally for all GC'ed languages.
    - qznc 11y ago
      D has lots of tools to avoid heap allocation. There is no reason why D should use more heap allocations than Rust. A GC might only encourage you to use more heap allocations.

pcwalton 11y ago

Bounds checking is optional in Rust too. And I've never seen bounds checks show up in instruction-level profiling of Rust code, due to the way iterators work. Can you elaborate as to other ways Rust has worse performance?

CyberShadow 11y ago
> Bounds checking is optional in Rust too. Could've sworn I've read somewhere the Rust maintainers stated that Rust will never have a switch to disable bounds checking. Has this changed? > Can you elaborate as to other ways Rust has worse performance? I don't know of any other specifics, but benchmarks usually show D outperform Rust (and often enough, everything else), e.g.: https://togototo.wordpress.com/2013/07/23/benchmarking-level-generation-go-rust-haskell-and-d/ https://togototo.wordpress.com/2013/07/23/benchmarking-level... https://github.com/nsf/pnoise https://github.com/nsf/pnoise
- CyberShadow 11y ago
  Here is the relevant thread: https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/rust-dev/2014-March/009214.html https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/rust-dev/2014-March/00921... In some cases, bounds checking doesn't make sense, e.g. in video games running on consoles.
  - pjmlp 11y ago
    > In some cases, bounds checking doesn't make sense, e.g. in video games running on consoles. As if it couldn't be used to exploit and pirate the games, get extra lifes, buy in-game items without paying, automate bots... "Many years later we asked our customers whether they wished us to provide an option to switch off these checks in the interests of efficiency on production runs. Unanimously, they urged us not to--they already knew how frequently subscript errors occur on production runs where failure to detect them could be disastrous. I note with fear and horror that even in 1980, language designers and users have not learned this lesson. In any respectable branch of engineering, failure to observe such elementary precautions would have long been against the law." - C.A.R Hoare Turing Award speech, 1980
    - CyberShadow 11y ago
      Pretty much everyone in the video games industry is going to disagree with this. Performance is the primary concern there, period. Languages that reject such ideas in favor of others simply will not be used, given a choice. Consoles also only run signed code, enforce NX, and mprotect doesn't exist, so there is very little in what can be exploited. > automate bots... This has nothing to do with memory safety.
      - pcwalton 11y ago
        Again, bounds checking really doesn't show up in profiles. Iterators have none, and LLVM removes most of the ones that remain. It's really a non-issue.
      - pjmlp 11y ago
        > Languages that reject such ideas in favor of others simply will not be used, given a choice. That is the key issue, "given a choice". I saw game developers being dragged into accepting C was replacing their beautiful Assembly, followed by game developers being dragged into accepting C++ was replacing their beautiful C. You can be pretty sure if tomorrow Sony, Apple, Nintendo, Google or Microsoft said "you must use language X", they would do it. So yeah, given the choice they can continue to lose money thanks to memory corruption exploits. Signed code and NX don't protect against memory corruption. One can use ROP to work around it.
    - krylon 11y ago
      Amen! A couple of years back, I worked at a company where I helped maintain and improve a couple of programs written in C, and words cannot express how much I wished for a compiler switch to get bounds-checking, even if it was just for testing and debugging... Garbage collection/memory management was never much of a problem, but those nasty little off-by-one errors causing the program to corrupt the heap (which of course did not make it crash until a while later, so the location of the crash was usually totally unrelated to where the actual bug was located... sigh) drove me nuts!
      - p0nce 11y ago
- pcwalton 11y ago
  > Could've sworn I've read somewhere the Rust maintainers stated that Rust will never have a switch to disable bounds checking. Has this changed? Not having a switch to disable bounds checking is not the same as not being able to disable bounds checking. > I don't know of any other specifics, but benchmarks usually show D outperform Rust (and often enough, everything else), e.g.: It's been years since I saw those benchmarks. Those are benchmarks of the built-in library random number generator. Rust uses a more secure random number generator by default than most of the other languages, so it will go slower. If you really want to benchmark random number generation, pick a faster but less secure algorithm.
  - CyberShadow 11y ago
    > Not having a switch to disable bounds checking is not the same as not being able to disable bounds checking. Not sure what you're getting at. Marking the entire program as unsafe is not realistic. Marking specific portions leaves a long tail of code that "rarely" runs, but still adds up. > Those are benchmarks of the built-in library random number generator. The levgen-benchmarks programs implement the XOR-shift RNG in both the Rust and D versions.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - pcwalton 11y ago
      > but still adds up. No, it doesn't. Bounds checks in cold code don't matter (and there aren't many to begin with). Even bounds checks in hot code frequently don't matter. Have you profiled Rust code and found bounds checks to be a problem? > The levgen-benchmarks programs implement the XOR-shift RNG in both the Rust and D versions. Oh, I see that they changed it. Still, that benchmark is from 2013 and doesn't compile anymore. It predates unboxed closures and many other performance improvements. And 15% is in the "different register allocation decisions will affect the outcome" range, where comparisons are fairly meaningless. The fact that D and Rust beat C doesn't mean that they're faster than C.
      - 11y ago
- dbaupp 11y ago
  Rust has iterators which avoid the need for direct indexing in many uses of contiguous-memory storage, and hence avoid unnecessary bounds checks (just like D's ranges). When indexing is required, bounds checking can be disabled individually by indexing with `get_unchecked` (or `get_unchecked_mut`): http://doc.rust-lang.org/std/primitive.slice.html#method.get_unchecked http://doc.rust-lang.org/std/primitive.slice.html#method.get... In any case, when comparing language performance, it's generally good to avoid comparing backend performance, i.e. focus on the LLVM-based compilers in the pnoise benchmark. A GCC-based Rust compiler would almost certainly outperform the current LLVM-based one for that benchmark (as suggested by gcc vs. clang and gdc vs. ldc2). Of course, such a compiler doesn't currently exist, so if you care about getting your code to run as fast as possible right now, Rust isn't the best choice based on that benchmark, but Rust has several reasons that it's likely to outperform both C and D by default: - better aliasing information (than both C and D), so compilers can optimise more aggressively - lifetimes mean more aggressive stack allocation/ownership patterns can be used without risk (a bonus over C, and something that D solves via GC, which has its own upsides & downsides) - the type system has been designed to be particularly good at concurrency & parallelism, so again this can be used more aggressively and in more situations (e.g. libraries can expose interfaces that allow mutating data directly on the stack of other threads without risk of data races or dangling pointers)
  - aldanor 11y ago
    Rust iterators are a bit of a crutch IMO, until it's possible to return them unboxed; if you use them heavily you end up with types one paragraph long.
    - dbaupp 11y ago
      Yeah, it's annoying that one can't return them unboxed to be easily able to construct zero-overhead lazily-evaluated sequences, but that's entirely unrelated to their avoid-bounds-checks property. Instead of iterating over a range of indices and indexing, use the slice iterator, it's basically a drop-in replacement. The former can either be done with a manual loop & addition (which is not at all lazy and definitely can't be returned, i.e. Rust's current iterators are strictly more flexible), or it is done with the Range iterator. The two lazy forms are basically the same: let v: &[T] = ...; let x: iter::Map<ops::Range<usize>, _> = (0..n).map(|i| { let elem = &v[i]; // do stuff }) let y: iter::Map<slice::Iter<T>, _> = v.iter().map(|elem| { // do stuff });

yokohummer7 11y ago

> D is more pragmatic Being pragmatic is a very questionable claim. Its exact meaning varies from time to time, and a property that a certain people consider to be pragmatic can be considered to be not pragmatic by another people. It's mostly meaningless. For example, for embedded devices D is a no-go from the beginning. I'm not just saying the reliance on GC. D has a few ridiculous behavior that may cost significantly on the low resource devices, such as http://forum.dlang.org/thread/mr6bl7$26f5$1@digitalmars.com http://forum.dlang.org/thread/mr6bl7$26f5$1@digitalmars.com D is never pragmatic in this area. But of course, D may be pragmatic in other areas. > expressive D and Rust have different kinds of expressiveness. While D has much better compile-time metaprogramming, how do you express affine type in D? In Rust affine type is very fundamental and we can utilize it to define the exact meaning of our programs. > and generally has better performance (e.g. bounds checking is optional). What? How can a GC'ed language be faster than a non-GC'ed language? Besides simple numeric evaluation, D is generally more heap-allocation-heavy than Rust, so it can never beat Rust. After all, there's no point in Rust if it's slower than a GC'ed language. The benchmarks you linked are questionable too, as their results say D is faster than C. Are you really sure D can outperform C in general cases?

rpedela 11y ago
> How can a GC'ed language be faster than a non-GC'ed language? Besides simple numeric evaluation, D is generally more heap-allocation-heavy than Rust, so it can never beat Rust. I would be interested in benchmarks showing that. Do you have any?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- yokohummer7 11y ago
  Sorry, I don't have specific numbers. I was saying generally for all GC'ed languages.
  - qznc 11y ago
    D has lots of tools to avoid heap allocation. There is no reason why D should use more heap allocations than Rust. A GC might only encourage you to use more heap allocations.