6 ms·

Can i ask why do you mention rust ? By that i mean what prompted you to write about rust here and now.

by gens 9y ago

im_down_w_otp 9y ago
I assume because of the correlation (s)he is drawing between memory safety facilities that lend themselves to reliable, long-running software, and that the next-generation of such software might be written in Rust based on those facilities being at compile time? Though in this context---if we were to include more than that one dimension of the memory model---pony-lang seems like it might be the more Rust-like w/ compile time guarantees, but with a general programming model of intercommunicating asynchronous processes included.
- gens 9y ago
  Erlang is completely different then rust (or C, Ada, FORTRAN). Why, on a topic about (an amazing language that is) erlang would you talk about other languages. Especially when they are nothing like erlang.
  - rdtsc 9y ago
    It is not completely different. Both Erlang and Rust emphasize safety at the top of their feature lists. That is contrast with most other languages / platforms.
    - gens 9y ago
      It is COMPLETELY different from rust. Not only in the syntax, but also in the things it does and how it does them. http://learnyousomeerlang.com/content http://learnyousomeerlang.com/content A lot of languages "emphasize safety at the top of their feature lists". By a lot i mean A LOT. If you have to compare, Erlang is similar to Haskell. Rust is nothing like erlang.
      - rdtsc 9y ago
        > COMPLETELY different from rust. Not only in the syntax Why bring syntax as the first thing? What does that have todo with memory safety. > By a lot i mean A LOT. You mentioned Haskell and Ada so far. Which I agree with. What are the other ones?
        gens 9y ago
        I also mentioned FORTRAN. A 10min investigation would bring fruit to your curiosity. But wth.. Lisp, scheme, closure, modula and smalltalk are the ones that come to my mind now that offer ONLY safe data access (modula3 has "unsafe" keyword, but only when talking to outside code). Actually R, awk, bc, shell and such are also like that, but not really general purpose. Languages that are "memory safe" by default, but include "unsafe" memory access (that come to my mind now) are C#, F#, C++ and such (Rust goes into this "category"). All functional languages are, AFAIK, "memory safe" by default (well.. you could make a functional language that lets you go out of bounds, but that wouldn't be a "pure" functional language). In fact, as far as i know, there are more programming languages that ARE "memory safe" then ones that are not. One could just go over the wikipedia list [0] and.. list them out. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_programming_languages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_programming_languages While somewhat on the topic of functional vs "Turing" languages, here's a couple of videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eis11j_iGMs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eis11j_iGMs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPQD7-AOjMI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPQD7-AOjMI So.. the only thing that prompted you to talk about Rust is memory safety ? EDIT: > Why bring syntax as the first thing? What does that have todo with memory safety. Because the question i asked was "Can i ask why do you mention rust ? By that i mean what prompted you to write about rust here and now." and your answer was (paraphrased) "they bout emphasize memory safety", as if that was the only defining factor of a programming language.
        rdtsc 9y ago
        > C#, F#, C++ Ok if C++ is memory safe, what's a memory unsafe language then? If concurrency units (threads, co-routines) share a heap they are not memory safe. In Rust they do but Rust provide compile time checks for make sure access is safe. awk, bc not production level languages. I think you're being disingenuous there. > the only thing that prompted you to talk about Rust is memory safety ? Yes > they bout emphasize memory safety", as if that was the only defining factor of a programming language. If you know anything about both languages that's at the top of their features list, which I mentioned. > I also mentioned FORTRAN. Ah interesting. So initializing a variable in FORTRAN would put that in thread local / separate heap?
  - im_down_w_otp 9y ago
    The majority of the post was about a cool/interesting way Erlang does something and praising the linked article. The very last statement was a passing commentary about something that seemed conceptually correlated to the commenter. I'm really confused by the hyper-sensitivity. With the exception of Javascript conversation threads--- where they're overwhelmed by React vs. X---almost all other language focused threads on HN are full of people making comparison and contrast statements to different things.
    - gens 9y ago
      If i went into every thread about rust and mentioned how Ada is great (or any other language, including C), id' get downvoted. Why is that ? "Hyper-sensitivity" ?
      - Jtsummers 9y ago
        I've not done that in every thread on Rust, but I have made similar comments in Rust threads about areas where Ada has it beat with regard to some parts of the type system and compile-time guarantees and checks. If I was ever downvoted, it was not below base post karma (1).
      - rdtsc 9y ago
        > i went into every thread about rust and mentioned how Ada is great (or any other language, including C), id' get downvoted. If you just mentioned that Ada is great without a reason you might get downvoted or just asked to provide support for you statement. If you provide a reason or compare some of the features Ada has and how they might be better in some cases, I don't think you would be. Compared to other forums, I think HN is pretty good about that.
rdtsc 9y ago
Memory safety. I made the point that Erlang VM puts memory safety front and center by using isolated heaps. And from there made a comparison between operating systems and language platforms. In the end pointed out that Rust accomplishes memory safety as well but in a different way - via a compiler check.

Can i ask why do you mention rust ? By that i mean what prompted you to write about rust here and now.

by gens 9y ago

Can i ask why do you mention rust ? By that i mean what prompted you to write about rust here and now.

I assume because of the correlation (s)he is drawing between memory safety facilities that lend themselves to reliable, long-running software, and that the next-generation of such software might be written in Rust based on those facilities being at compile time? Though in this context---if we were to include more than that one dimension of the memory model---pony-lang seems like it might be the more Rust-like w/ compile time guarantees, but with a general programming model of intercommunicating asynchronous processes included.

gens 9y ago
Erlang is completely different then rust (or C, Ada, FORTRAN). Why, on a topic about (an amazing language that is) erlang would you talk about other languages. Especially when they are nothing like erlang.
- rdtsc 9y ago
  It is not completely different. Both Erlang and Rust emphasize safety at the top of their feature lists. That is contrast with most other languages / platforms.
  - gens 9y ago
    It is COMPLETELY different from rust. Not only in the syntax, but also in the things it does and how it does them. http://learnyousomeerlang.com/content http://learnyousomeerlang.com/content A lot of languages "emphasize safety at the top of their feature lists". By a lot i mean A LOT. If you have to compare, Erlang is similar to Haskell. Rust is nothing like erlang.
    - rdtsc 9y ago
      > COMPLETELY different from rust. Not only in the syntax Why bring syntax as the first thing? What does that have todo with memory safety. > By a lot i mean A LOT. You mentioned Haskell and Ada so far. Which I agree with. What are the other ones?
      - gens 9y ago
        I also mentioned FORTRAN. A 10min investigation would bring fruit to your curiosity. But wth.. Lisp, scheme, closure, modula and smalltalk are the ones that come to my mind now that offer ONLY safe data access (modula3 has "unsafe" keyword, but only when talking to outside code). Actually R, awk, bc, shell and such are also like that, but not really general purpose. Languages that are "memory safe" by default, but include "unsafe" memory access (that come to my mind now) are C#, F#, C++ and such (Rust goes into this "category"). All functional languages are, AFAIK, "memory safe" by default (well.. you could make a functional language that lets you go out of bounds, but that wouldn't be a "pure" functional language). In fact, as far as i know, there are more programming languages that ARE "memory safe" then ones that are not. One could just go over the wikipedia list [0] and.. list them out. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_programming_languages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_programming_languages While somewhat on the topic of functional vs "Turing" languages, here's a couple of videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eis11j_iGMs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eis11j_iGMs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPQD7-AOjMI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPQD7-AOjMI So.. the only thing that prompted you to talk about Rust is memory safety ? EDIT: > Why bring syntax as the first thing? What does that have todo with memory safety. Because the question i asked was "Can i ask why do you mention rust ? By that i mean what prompted you to write about rust here and now." and your answer was (paraphrased) "they bout emphasize memory safety", as if that was the only defining factor of a programming language.
        rdtsc 9y ago
        > C#, F#, C++ Ok if C++ is memory safe, what's a memory unsafe language then? If concurrency units (threads, co-routines) share a heap they are not memory safe. In Rust they do but Rust provide compile time checks for make sure access is safe. awk, bc not production level languages. I think you're being disingenuous there. > the only thing that prompted you to talk about Rust is memory safety ? Yes > they bout emphasize memory safety", as if that was the only defining factor of a programming language. If you know anything about both languages that's at the top of their features list, which I mentioned. > I also mentioned FORTRAN. Ah interesting. So initializing a variable in FORTRAN would put that in thread local / separate heap?
- im_down_w_otp 9y ago
  The majority of the post was about a cool/interesting way Erlang does something and praising the linked article. The very last statement was a passing commentary about something that seemed conceptually correlated to the commenter. I'm really confused by the hyper-sensitivity. With the exception of Javascript conversation threads--- where they're overwhelmed by React vs. X---almost all other language focused threads on HN are full of people making comparison and contrast statements to different things.
  - gens 9y ago
    If i went into every thread about rust and mentioned how Ada is great (or any other language, including C), id' get downvoted. Why is that ? "Hyper-sensitivity" ?
    - Jtsummers 9y ago
      I've not done that in every thread on Rust, but I have made similar comments in Rust threads about areas where Ada has it beat with regard to some parts of the type system and compile-time guarantees and checks. If I was ever downvoted, it was not below base post karma (1).
    - rdtsc 9y ago
      > i went into every thread about rust and mentioned how Ada is great (or any other language, including C), id' get downvoted. If you just mentioned that Ada is great without a reason you might get downvoted or just asked to provide support for you statement. If you provide a reason or compare some of the features Ada has and how they might be better in some cases, I don't think you would be. Compared to other forums, I think HN is pretty good about that.

rdtsc 9y ago

Memory safety. I made the point that Erlang VM puts memory safety front and center by using isolated heaps. And from there made a comparison between operating systems and language platforms. In the end pointed out that Rust accomplishes memory safety as well but in a different way - via a compiler check.