3 ms·
I suspect any runtime, at all, would be too much overhead.
by chillydawg 10y ago
I suspect any runtime, at all, would be too much overhead.
- vertex-four 10y agoThere isn't a Rust runtime, though, in the sense that you seem to be implying. There's a standard library, which is what I assumed they meant.
- johncolanduoni 10y agoYes, I was using it to describe the standard library. C and C++ are both described as having a runtime, and Rust has one in the same sense. In any case I would consider the code needed for handling stack unwinding to be worthy of the name runtime (small though it may be). I understand it doesn't have a runtime in the way a JIT'ed or GC'ed language has a runtime, but it's a runtime nonetheless.
- jdub 10y agoThis C code doesn't use the C library. Code like this in Rust wouldn't engage with any part of the Rust standard library either. There's no runtime work to be done, in either language.
- johncolanduoni 10y agoThere is still an overhead in terms of executable size, unless you use #![no_std]. This environment is not easy to code in; it doesn't even have heap allocation.