3 ms·

I'm not saying that the possibility of doing it the current way should be removed, I'm just saying that there should be a cleaner/easier way that's recommended

by tormeh 10y ago

I'm not saying that the possibility of doing it the current way should be removed, I'm just saying that there should be a cleaner/easier way that's recommended in the Rust docs. If people really need to optimize this that's fine, but it should be opt-in, not the only way to do it.

kbenson 10y ago
> If people really need to optimize this that's fine, but it should be opt-in, not the only way to do it. Be careful, you're taking goals of other languages and layering them on Rust. It's entirely valid for a language to decide that the default idioms should not be sub optimal where that's easily achievable. In a language meant to compete with C/C++ on performance, defaulting to a slower idiom when security is not in question may not be the correct choice. In a language that is accepting some level of non-negligible performance loss in idiomatic code already (such as Go), the decision may be different.
- tormeh 10y ago
  Valid point. My perception is that Rust wants to be a little more mainstream than C++ though. That said, my conclusion after looking at Rust is that it's Haskell for compile-time memory management; i.e. it won't become very popular, but it'll influence languages that do.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "a little more mainstream", which I read as implying C++ isn't mainstream, and when I think mainstream programming languages the top two in my mind, when generalizing across domains, are C/C++ and Java. There are specific areas where they aren't somewhere very close to the top (webapps, but even there Java makes a showing in the enterprise), but those are the exceptions. My impression of Rust has always been that it's trying to supplant C++, by providing something with similar performance characteristics while being safer and with somewhat improved ergonomics (given the required complexity increase for the additional security, which may yield a net gain or loss in ergonomics depending on your point of view and background). > it won't become very popular, but it'll influence languages that do That's entirely possible, and I'm willing to accept that as a good thing if it happens. :)

by tormeh 10y ago

kbenson 10y ago

> If people really need to optimize this that's fine, but it should be opt-in, not the only way to do it. Be careful, you're taking goals of other languages and layering them on Rust. It's entirely valid for a language to decide that the default idioms should not be sub optimal where that's easily achievable. In a language meant to compete with C/C++ on performance, defaulting to a slower idiom when security is not in question may not be the correct choice. In a language that is accepting some level of non-negligible performance loss in idiomatic code already (such as Go), the decision may be different.

tormeh 10y ago
Valid point. My perception is that Rust wants to be a little more mainstream than C++ though. That said, my conclusion after looking at Rust is that it's Haskell for compile-time memory management; i.e. it won't become very popular, but it'll influence languages that do.
- kbenson 10y ago
  I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "a little more mainstream", which I read as implying C++ isn't mainstream, and when I think mainstream programming languages the top two in my mind, when generalizing across domains, are C/C++ and Java. There are specific areas where they aren't somewhere very close to the top (webapps, but even there Java makes a showing in the enterprise), but those are the exceptions. My impression of Rust has always been that it's trying to supplant C++, by providing something with similar performance characteristics while being safer and with somewhat improved ergonomics (given the required complexity increase for the additional security, which may yield a net gain or loss in ergonomics depending on your point of view and background). > it won't become very popular, but it'll influence languages that do That's entirely possible, and I'm willing to accept that as a good thing if it happens. :)