6 ms·

Except Rust has incredible memory safety, without cumbersome and slow GC, and runs close to C++ speeds, unlike the heavy, wasteful, and slow frameworks you ment

Except Rust has incredible memory safety, without cumbersome and slow GC, and runs close to C++ speeds, unlike the heavy, wasteful, and slow frameworks you mention like Electron or HTML5. Rust is a modern C/C++ replacement, or at least tries to be. That's no mean feat.

mseri 10y ago
Plus alacritty looks great and is much faster and lighter than most other terminal emulators, ripgrep is a great replacement for grep and can be a serious improvement when you are searching through millions of lines on thousands of giant files. To mention just the two of them...
- bpicolo 10y ago
  I only use ripgrep these days.
- Spiritus 10y ago
  Alacritty is full of render issues and missing features. It's fast because it barely does anything, and doesn't even do it correct. Just check the ever growing laundry list of issues it has on Github. With that said, it's a very interesting project. Especially with regards to its rendering engine.
wulfklaue 10y ago
Except that there are other languages like Go, Crystal, D, Nim that all offer memory safety ( thanks to there GC ), with a light GC ( like reference counting ). And based upon the same benchmarks that Rust in participates, they are close or even faster at times, with close or better memory usage. https://github.com/kostya/benchmarks https://github.com/kostya/benchmarks
- bnolsen 10y ago
  GCs are nondeterministic amongst other issues. Baking one into the core of a systems language likely isn't a good idea.
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    It worked out alright for Algol 68RS, Mesa/Cedar, Modula-2+, Modula-3, Oberon, Oberon-2, Active Oberon, Component Pascal, Sing#, System C#. Those systems failed market adoption mostly due to politics and company acquisitions than technical hurdles.
    - adrianN 10y ago
      Some applications are easier without a GC. Embedded work comes to mind. Realtime guarantees for systems with GC are also somewhat tricky (though not impossible to achieve).
      - pjmlp 10y ago
        True, but just because a systems language has a GC doesn't mean one has to use it everywhere, it is the only mechanism to allocate memory or that it has to run all the time. Modula-3 is a good example of how to support all scenarios required by a systems programming language with GC, unfortunately Compaq buying DEC followed by HP buying Compaq, killed all the work the SRC group was doing. For embedded work check the Oberon compilers sold by Astrobe for ARM Cortex-M3, Cortex-M4 and Cortex-M7, as well as, Xilinx FPGA Systems.
  - rurban 10y ago
    Baking unsafe memory languages with limited type systems and blocking libraries for the hard parts is neither a good idea for systems.
- ryeguy 10y ago
  Try these benchmarks instead: http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/rust.html http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/rust.html Rust should be beating the majority of those languages in well-implemented comparisons.
- dom0 10y ago
  > light GC ( like reference counting ) Refcounting is often one of the slower ways to implement a GC. It also has other issues, like long GC pauses when a large structure goes out of scope.
rurban 10y ago
I hope you do realize that a good GC is usually faster then refcounting, and comparing it to slow GC's does not prove anything. For fairness you need to compare Rust to D or Pony or SBCL, which are also close to C++ (even faster), plus added concurrency safety or memory safety, which can be circumvented in Rust.
- adwn 10y ago
  > I hope you do realize that a good GC is usually faster then refcounting, and comparing it to slow GC's does not prove anything. In idiomatic Rust code, you typically have very few reference increments/decrements, making it faster and more efficient than both, GC and traditional RC-based approaches. The reasons for this are that objects are often allocated on the stack, passed by reference (a safe pointer), and directly integrated into a larger structure, requiring fewer heap allocations and very few – if any – refcounted objects. In Rust, unlike C or C++, you can do this safely and ergonomically because Rust enforces clear and well-defined ownership semantics.
  - rurban 10y ago
    I do know rust, their RC problems, their unsafe problems, their concurrency and locking problems and their type system problems. What is problematic is that the rust community does not care about it and still repeats wrong sentences all over. (Besides downvoting, but this just shows how much they don't care to learn)
    - steveklabnik 10y ago
      You haven't actually demonstrated any problems, just repeated that they exist. Unsubstantiated criticism usually gets downvoted on HN, Rust or not.
    - adwn 10y ago
      > I do know rust, their RC problems, their unsafe problems, their concurrency and locking problems and their type system problems. Please elaborate. In particular, what RC and concurrency problems?

mseri 10y ago

Plus alacritty looks great and is much faster and lighter than most other terminal emulators, ripgrep is a great replacement for grep and can be a serious improvement when you are searching through millions of lines on thousands of giant files. To mention just the two of them...

bpicolo 10y ago
I only use ripgrep these days.
Spiritus 10y ago
Alacritty is full of render issues and missing features. It's fast because it barely does anything, and doesn't even do it correct. Just check the ever growing laundry list of issues it has on Github. With that said, it's a very interesting project. Especially with regards to its rendering engine.

wulfklaue 10y ago

Except that there are other languages like Go, Crystal, D, Nim that all offer memory safety ( thanks to there GC ), with a light GC ( like reference counting ). And based upon the same benchmarks that Rust in participates, they are close or even faster at times, with close or better memory usage. https://github.com/kostya/benchmarks https://github.com/kostya/benchmarks

bnolsen 10y ago
GCs are nondeterministic amongst other issues. Baking one into the core of a systems language likely isn't a good idea.
- pjmlp 10y ago
  It worked out alright for Algol 68RS, Mesa/Cedar, Modula-2+, Modula-3, Oberon, Oberon-2, Active Oberon, Component Pascal, Sing#, System C#. Those systems failed market adoption mostly due to politics and company acquisitions than technical hurdles.
  - adrianN 10y ago
    Some applications are easier without a GC. Embedded work comes to mind. Realtime guarantees for systems with GC are also somewhat tricky (though not impossible to achieve).
    - pjmlp 10y ago
      True, but just because a systems language has a GC doesn't mean one has to use it everywhere, it is the only mechanism to allocate memory or that it has to run all the time. Modula-3 is a good example of how to support all scenarios required by a systems programming language with GC, unfortunately Compaq buying DEC followed by HP buying Compaq, killed all the work the SRC group was doing. For embedded work check the Oberon compilers sold by Astrobe for ARM Cortex-M3, Cortex-M4 and Cortex-M7, as well as, Xilinx FPGA Systems.
- rurban 10y ago
  Baking unsafe memory languages with limited type systems and blocking libraries for the hard parts is neither a good idea for systems.
ryeguy 10y ago
Try these benchmarks instead: http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/rust.html http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/rust.html Rust should be beating the majority of those languages in well-implemented comparisons.
dom0 10y ago
> light GC ( like reference counting ) Refcounting is often one of the slower ways to implement a GC. It also has other issues, like long GC pauses when a large structure goes out of scope.

rurban 10y ago

I hope you do realize that a good GC is usually faster then refcounting, and comparing it to slow GC's does not prove anything. For fairness you need to compare Rust to D or Pony or SBCL, which are also close to C++ (even faster), plus added concurrency safety or memory safety, which can be circumvented in Rust.

adwn 10y ago
> I hope you do realize that a good GC is usually faster then refcounting, and comparing it to slow GC's does not prove anything. In idiomatic Rust code, you typically have very few reference increments/decrements, making it faster and more efficient than both, GC and traditional RC-based approaches. The reasons for this are that objects are often allocated on the stack, passed by reference (a safe pointer), and directly integrated into a larger structure, requiring fewer heap allocations and very few – if any – refcounted objects. In Rust, unlike C or C++, you can do this safely and ergonomically because Rust enforces clear and well-defined ownership semantics.
- rurban 10y ago
  I do know rust, their RC problems, their unsafe problems, their concurrency and locking problems and their type system problems. What is problematic is that the rust community does not care about it and still repeats wrong sentences all over. (Besides downvoting, but this just shows how much they don't care to learn)
  - steveklabnik 10y ago
    You haven't actually demonstrated any problems, just repeated that they exist. Unsubstantiated criticism usually gets downvoted on HN, Rust or not.
  - adwn 10y ago
    > I do know rust, their RC problems, their unsafe problems, their concurrency and locking problems and their type system problems. Please elaborate. In particular, what RC and concurrency problems?