4 ms·
In my limited experience, no. All of the languages you mention put developer experience above portability, so usually require a basic runtime. C on the other ha
by isaachier 9y ago
In my limited experience, no. All of the languages you mention put developer experience above portability, so usually require a basic runtime. C on the other hand is not interested in saving you from the machine, which allows for extremely minimal programs. Even C++ isn't great here compared to C. Then again, debugging segfaults isn't for everyone, so most are fine giving up C.
- whyever 9y ago> All of the languages you mention put developer experience above portability, so usually require a basic runtime. Rust's runtime is comparable to C's. It is less portable because it uses LLVM as a backend, not because of the runtime. > Then again, debugging segfaults isn't for everyone, so most are fine giving up C. Depending on the application, having vulnerabilities due to undefined behavior is a much bigger problem than having to debug segfaults.
- nomonomus 9y agothen port it to gcc?
- steveklabnik 9y agoWe’d love to see a gcc front end for Rust. Someone attempted one in the pre-1.0 days, which was... not simple. Someone has to step up and do it though.
- carlmr 9y ago+1 for mentioning Rust. Which in contrast to C++ has all the goodies without the runtime dependencies. I wouldn't say LLVM is such a great restriction, except when talking about embedded (too few architectures supported here). The major desktop and server architectures are supported (AFAIK), even WASM.