4 ms·

Try Rust maybe? It has a different learning curve from C, as initially you'll be having a hard time getting programs to compile at all, but from that point the

Try Rust maybe? It has a different learning curve from C, as initially you'll be having a hard time getting programs to compile at all, but from that point the ergonomics are much better and you don't ever have to deal memory bugs unless you're developing a low-level library.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
echelon 10y ago
I second this notion. I'm quite productive in Rust now and can string together web services quickly. (To date I've written a text to speech engine, a laser projector renderer, and some image processing stuff.) Rust is so awesome. Unlike Python or Ruby it's typesafe at compile time. Unlike Java and Go, it has no dumb GC, and unlike C and C++ it's memory safe. At compile time! Programs can be distributed as a single binary, which makes deployment a breeze. If that weren't enough, Rust innovates beyond every language I know of with its compile time threadsafety and fucking sweet package manager. (Cargo is seriously the best package manager I've ever used--perhaps the best in existence right now.) Give Rust a try. It's freaking awesome. (I'll buy you a coffee if you do and don't like it!)
- rb808 10y ago
  That does sound freaking awesome, I really will have to try it out.
  - echelon 10y ago
    The borrow checker is hard to deal with at first, but after you power through the initial difficulty it becomes second nature. I rarely have to fight the compiler, and when I do it's because I'm trying to do something stupid. In a way I'd liken learning Rust to learning Vim. There is an upfront cost, but the payoff is going to be huge.
- CorvusCrypto 10y ago
  Idk if I share your enthusiasm, but rust is pretty cool. Certainly has its uses though for bare metal I'd still say go with C (and ASM) if using atmel's AVR chips. At least until rust gets a working compiler to AVR. Seems it is getting ever closer https://github.com/avr-rust/rust https://github.com/avr-rust/rust
- cm2187 10y ago
  How developed is the ecosystem? One thing I enjoy about .net is the huge number of free and commercial libraries, the great IDE, and the ability to code a very broad range of applications with a single language (website, CLI, GUI, service, etc). Is Rust comparable?
  - echelon 10y ago
    Not at all. Rust has a long, long road ahead before it has an ecosystem comparable to Java or .NET. These systems have literally man centuries of work poured into them. That said, I still predict Rust becoming the most important language of the decade, if not the decades that follow simply due to the strength of its foundation. Rust solves problems that no other language has--real problems with actual costs--, and fits into a very interesting space where it can eat away at the lethargic incumbants. Rust is a web service language [1]. A desktop application language [2]. A CLI tooling language [3]. A core system library language. A game development language (eventually) [4]. It has a bright future ahead in so many different domains, and the tooling and libraries will come and reinforce this. [1] Hyper, Iron [2] Servo [3] Ripgrep [4] Piston
  - naasking 10y ago
    I suggest a thought experiment: take a few random projects you have or plan to work on, go to [1] and search for the kind of packages you need and see what's missing. It's getting better all the time, and you'll find most straightforward projects are totally doable in Rust. [1] https://crates.io/ https://crates.io/
- keldaris 10y ago
  Rust certainly seems to have a very enthusiastic (albeit small) user base. I'm someone who usually feels comfortable rapidly switching between a wide variety of languages, including unpopular ones (D is one of my favorites), but I've never seriously tried Rust. There are two reasons for this. First (and this is the less important one), the syntax seems second only to Java in verbosity and often seems different for no readily evident reason. Secondly, virtually any time someone's advocating for Rust, you get a long lecture about how memory safety is the most important thing in the world and anyone who disagrees is so hopelessly backward that they should be disqualified from writing any code at all. Well, it happens to be very low on my list of concerns. In fact, for most of the low level code I write, memory safety, ownership tracking, borrow checking, etc. are wholly irrelevant. So, given that, should I look at Rust (as compared to C++ and D, which I use and enjoy)? Does it have meaningful advantages that compensate for its syntax, immaturity and performance limitations (vectorization, etc.)? I've asked a few Rust users this before, but never really gotten a satisfactory answer that didn't involve the same memory/thread safety argument. Give me one and I'll happily give Rust a try, no coffee necessary. :)
  - jjnoakes 10y ago
    Can you give examples of C++ code which would not require you to keep the ownership or borrowing straight in your head, and which a port to Rust would cause you unnecessary verbosity? I usually find that if my C++ code required little to no mental tracking of ownership or borrowing or lifetimes, the rust was straight forward. And if the rust was complex, the C++ required me to keep too much in my head (or even had bugs).
    - keldaris 10y ago
      Technically, all code requires you to keep track of ownership and borrowing. In cases where these are intellectually trivial concerns (which, I would argue, are by far the most common cases), Rust's forcibly explicit approach is, if you accept the assumption of the previous sentence, unnecessarily verbose by definition. I cannot address the latter part of your argument (the more important part, I think), however, because as I stated, I have not invested serious effort in Rust. Intuitively, from the code and documentation I've seen, I'd be wary of trying to implement, say, highly performant (emphasis on the performance) cyclic graphs in Rust rather than C++, but that's merely an impression, hence my interest in learning more. And certainly, whatever the difficulty, the likelihood of bugs in C++ would be higher.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

echelon 10y ago

I second this notion. I'm quite productive in Rust now and can string together web services quickly. (To date I've written a text to speech engine, a laser projector renderer, and some image processing stuff.) Rust is so awesome. Unlike Python or Ruby it's typesafe at compile time. Unlike Java and Go, it has no dumb GC, and unlike C and C++ it's memory safe. At compile time! Programs can be distributed as a single binary, which makes deployment a breeze. If that weren't enough, Rust innovates beyond every language I know of with its compile time threadsafety and fucking sweet package manager. (Cargo is seriously the best package manager I've ever used--perhaps the best in existence right now.) Give Rust a try. It's freaking awesome. (I'll buy you a coffee if you do and don't like it!)

rb808 10y ago
That does sound freaking awesome, I really will have to try it out.
- echelon 10y ago
  The borrow checker is hard to deal with at first, but after you power through the initial difficulty it becomes second nature. I rarely have to fight the compiler, and when I do it's because I'm trying to do something stupid. In a way I'd liken learning Rust to learning Vim. There is an upfront cost, but the payoff is going to be huge.
CorvusCrypto 10y ago
Idk if I share your enthusiasm, but rust is pretty cool. Certainly has its uses though for bare metal I'd still say go with C (and ASM) if using atmel's AVR chips. At least until rust gets a working compiler to AVR. Seems it is getting ever closer https://github.com/avr-rust/rust https://github.com/avr-rust/rust
cm2187 10y ago
How developed is the ecosystem? One thing I enjoy about .net is the huge number of free and commercial libraries, the great IDE, and the ability to code a very broad range of applications with a single language (website, CLI, GUI, service, etc). Is Rust comparable?
- echelon 10y ago
  Not at all. Rust has a long, long road ahead before it has an ecosystem comparable to Java or .NET. These systems have literally man centuries of work poured into them. That said, I still predict Rust becoming the most important language of the decade, if not the decades that follow simply due to the strength of its foundation. Rust solves problems that no other language has--real problems with actual costs--, and fits into a very interesting space where it can eat away at the lethargic incumbants. Rust is a web service language [1]. A desktop application language [2]. A CLI tooling language [3]. A core system library language. A game development language (eventually) [4]. It has a bright future ahead in so many different domains, and the tooling and libraries will come and reinforce this. [1] Hyper, Iron [2] Servo [3] Ripgrep [4] Piston
- naasking 10y ago
  I suggest a thought experiment: take a few random projects you have or plan to work on, go to [1] and search for the kind of packages you need and see what's missing. It's getting better all the time, and you'll find most straightforward projects are totally doable in Rust. [1] https://crates.io/ https://crates.io/
keldaris 10y ago
Rust certainly seems to have a very enthusiastic (albeit small) user base. I'm someone who usually feels comfortable rapidly switching between a wide variety of languages, including unpopular ones (D is one of my favorites), but I've never seriously tried Rust. There are two reasons for this. First (and this is the less important one), the syntax seems second only to Java in verbosity and often seems different for no readily evident reason. Secondly, virtually any time someone's advocating for Rust, you get a long lecture about how memory safety is the most important thing in the world and anyone who disagrees is so hopelessly backward that they should be disqualified from writing any code at all. Well, it happens to be very low on my list of concerns. In fact, for most of the low level code I write, memory safety, ownership tracking, borrow checking, etc. are wholly irrelevant. So, given that, should I look at Rust (as compared to C++ and D, which I use and enjoy)? Does it have meaningful advantages that compensate for its syntax, immaturity and performance limitations (vectorization, etc.)? I've asked a few Rust users this before, but never really gotten a satisfactory answer that didn't involve the same memory/thread safety argument. Give me one and I'll happily give Rust a try, no coffee necessary. :)
- jjnoakes 10y ago
  Can you give examples of C++ code which would not require you to keep the ownership or borrowing straight in your head, and which a port to Rust would cause you unnecessary verbosity? I usually find that if my C++ code required little to no mental tracking of ownership or borrowing or lifetimes, the rust was straight forward. And if the rust was complex, the C++ required me to keep too much in my head (or even had bugs).
  - keldaris 10y ago
    Technically, all code requires you to keep track of ownership and borrowing. In cases where these are intellectually trivial concerns (which, I would argue, are by far the most common cases), Rust's forcibly explicit approach is, if you accept the assumption of the previous sentence, unnecessarily verbose by definition. I cannot address the latter part of your argument (the more important part, I think), however, because as I stated, I have not invested serious effort in Rust. Intuitively, from the code and documentation I've seen, I'd be wary of trying to implement, say, highly performant (emphasis on the performance) cyclic graphs in Rust rather than C++, but that's merely an impression, hence my interest in learning more. And certainly, whatever the difficulty, the likelihood of bugs in C++ would be higher.