4 ms·

> The most ironic part is that so many restrictions and problems are likely to provoke people to rely on whatever option happens to work, which might not be the

> The most ironic part is that so many restrictions and problems are likely to provoke people to rely on whatever option happens to work, which might not be the best/safest one. Programs written in Rust are empirically safer than programs written in C or C++. > The higher the freedom, the better the results delivered by a sensible/knowledgeable person. If that were true, then C and C++ code would be safer and more secure than programs written in memory-safe languages. Obviously, that's not the case. > seriously doubt that developers with real-world experience can like or even accept most of what this language represents. Lots of developers with real-world experience, including me, use Rust all the time without any more problems than they would have in any other language.

nukeop 9y ago
I don't see too many job offers for Rust developers, I see plenty for C and C++ though.
- gpm 9y ago
  With the exception of swift - which has the distinct advantage of being one of two languages you can write programs in for the most popular (? probably true since Android's market share is scattered across many models) piece of consumer hardware in the world - I can't think of a language of similar age to or younger than rust with as many job ads. You see plenty for C/C++ because they've existed forever, have a huge amount of code written in them, and a huge number of programmers who already know them. Just like with Cobal you will almost certainly see plenty for C/C++ many years into the future. That doesn't really say much about Rust.
- catach 9y ago
  The youth of the language should be a reasonable predictor of that difference, alone. It may indeed turn out that the way Rust's learning curve is front-loaded will prevent it from breaking into the mainstream, but that's a separate issue from developers deciding it's unsuitable for work after they learn it.
namelost 9y ago
> > The most ironic part is that so many restrictions and problems are likely to provoke people to rely on whatever option happens to work, which might not be the best/safest one > Programs written in Rust are empirically safer than programs written in C or C++. But Rust defines safety as being safe from the kinds of errors that the Rust compiler is capable of making one safe from (buffer overflows, race conditions, undefined behaviour, etc). If one if distracted by trying to satisfy the borrow checker, they might overlook a logical error. People have limited concentration, patience and perseverance and usually have to work to deadlines. Rust is great for writing high-performance code, or code that needs to be parallelised within a single process. However if performance is not a concern then a statically typed language with a GC is usually a better choice.
- dbaupp 9y ago
  In this case, safer == memory safety (which is not a Rust-specific thing), not general forms of correctness, and the comparison in the original comment is to C and C++, not statically typed languages with a GC.
  - namelost 9y ago
    Unless it has been edited, the original comment doesn't say memory safety, it says "so many restrictions and problems are likely to provoke people to rely on whatever option happens to work, which might not be the best/safest one". The reply to that comment then interprets safety as memory safety and compares to C and C++. This is kind of my point. Rust defines safety as memory safety, but unfortunately memory safety is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to safety. Logic errors are just as pernicious. Programmers have a natural bias towards solving problems with technical solutions, but for me, Rust's memory safety is achieved at the cost of a high productivity penalty and a moderate readability penalty. Both of these reduce my ability to understand and manually verify the code. Whereas languages that achieve memory safety via a GC, allow me to focus my mental energy on writing correct code, not on memory management.
    - metargz 9y ago

nukeop 9y ago

I don't see too many job offers for Rust developers, I see plenty for C and C++ though.

gpm 9y ago
With the exception of swift - which has the distinct advantage of being one of two languages you can write programs in for the most popular (? probably true since Android's market share is scattered across many models) piece of consumer hardware in the world - I can't think of a language of similar age to or younger than rust with as many job ads. You see plenty for C/C++ because they've existed forever, have a huge amount of code written in them, and a huge number of programmers who already know them. Just like with Cobal you will almost certainly see plenty for C/C++ many years into the future. That doesn't really say much about Rust.
catach 9y ago
The youth of the language should be a reasonable predictor of that difference, alone. It may indeed turn out that the way Rust's learning curve is front-loaded will prevent it from breaking into the mainstream, but that's a separate issue from developers deciding it's unsuitable for work after they learn it.

namelost 9y ago

> > The most ironic part is that so many restrictions and problems are likely to provoke people to rely on whatever option happens to work, which might not be the best/safest one > Programs written in Rust are empirically safer than programs written in C or C++. But Rust defines safety as being safe from the kinds of errors that the Rust compiler is capable of making one safe from (buffer overflows, race conditions, undefined behaviour, etc). If one if distracted by trying to satisfy the borrow checker, they might overlook a logical error. People have limited concentration, patience and perseverance and usually have to work to deadlines. Rust is great for writing high-performance code, or code that needs to be parallelised within a single process. However if performance is not a concern then a statically typed language with a GC is usually a better choice.

dbaupp 9y ago
In this case, safer == memory safety (which is not a Rust-specific thing), not general forms of correctness, and the comparison in the original comment is to C and C++, not statically typed languages with a GC.
- namelost 9y ago
  Unless it has been edited, the original comment doesn't say memory safety, it says "so many restrictions and problems are likely to provoke people to rely on whatever option happens to work, which might not be the best/safest one". The reply to that comment then interprets safety as memory safety and compares to C and C++. This is kind of my point. Rust defines safety as memory safety, but unfortunately memory safety is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to safety. Logic errors are just as pernicious. Programmers have a natural bias towards solving problems with technical solutions, but for me, Rust's memory safety is achieved at the cost of a high productivity penalty and a moderate readability penalty. Both of these reduce my ability to understand and manually verify the code. Whereas languages that achieve memory safety via a GC, allow me to focus my mental energy on writing correct code, not on memory management.
  - metargz 9y ago