7 ms·

Just go and compile hello world with this: https://bellard.org/tcc/ https://bellard.org/tcc/ And then with rust. Open your favorite decompiler and decompile bo

by _o_ 9y ago

Just go and compile hello world with this: https://bellard.org/tcc/ https://bellard.org/tcc/ And then with rust. Open your favorite decompiler and decompile both. C has again and again shown that less is more and it is going to stay that way. (Btw, it is really sad that you get downvoted based on your opinion.) Rust has become some PR stunt here, it is new hipster topic, but it has a long way to reach proficiency that developer is able to pull out from c. But knowlidge of programming is not enough, power of c is due to knowlidge that developer has and no tool is going to solve that (or he, he... garbage collector - pointing finger to java direction ;) )

jjnoakes 9y ago
> it is really sad that you get downvoted based on your opinion That's not really what is happening. I'm guessing you are getting downvoted for a few specific things: * "If you want [...] small binaries, rust is just wrong" * "[Rust is not close to processor instructions]" * "I think go has beaten rust at anything relevant" * "Rust has become hacker news click bait" The general tone of your comment is a bit inflammatory, you make some claims with no reasoning, and you aren't contributing much to the discussion (even if some of these are just "opinions", not all opinions are relevant or useful in the context of any given discussion). I'm also a little surprised that you insult the folks who are reading this thread (folks probably interested in Rust, since it is a Rust thread) and then wonder why they aren't interested in seeing your comment.
- _o_ 9y ago
  My opinion is right to the spot. The amount of posting for rust is inapropriate to the amount of posts every other language has while it seriously doesn't offer something revolutionary to developers. All fans are having c++ to be able to do same things or more, AFTER they have figured out their limits. c/c++ problem is not type safety but rather that it allows people doing anything. But this is also a huge bonus. (Btw, I don't care about downvoting, but it was somehow strange to see it)
  - jjnoakes 9y ago
    You are probably also getting downvotes because, as this comment of yours demonstrates, you don't know enough about Rust to hold an opinion worth discussing.
chc 9y ago
Do you not see how incredibly Blubby the view you're espousing here sounds? You seem surprised by the downvotes, but what you're saying seems to boil down to "Blub is fine." (Not a Rust developer, BTW, just somebody who already knows C and thinks it sounds interesting.)
- _o_ 9y ago
  Naaah, I just don't tend to be politically correct, the downvotes (roughly the same amount for all my posts here) are probably from the guys doing the Rust PR here and some sound reasoning is not doing them any favor. :) As I said, the amount of Rust posts here is disaproppriate to the amount of languages that are available and as Rust is not really much different to what you can do with c++ (just stop using pointers and you are there...), it just feels strange. Somehow it reminds me to the Cambridge Analytica case, a small amount of people (bots) manipulating the public opinion. :) But please, I am more then happy if you show me, I am wrong, what is so cool in Rust, that you can't pull with c++? And if you can't give a reasonable answer, why inventing a new language? Rather write it as a new conding standard. Or create new stl with your new paradigm. Or completely reinvent the types using a new library/headers. Why bother wasting time and reinventing what already works (profit? ;) ), and it works great (you can use it as an former VBA developer or as a guru, same language, different skill set, different features used).
  - kbenson 9y ago
    > Naaah, I just don't tend to be politically correct Which combined with your actual statements sounds to me like you're saying "I don't tend to care if what I'm saying strongly is wrong because I'm comfortable espousing my opinions as overly broad assertions of fact regardless of accuracy or counterarguments." That is, to put it bluntly, just a nice way of saying "I'm an asshole, and I'm okay with that." It's not a particularly useful way to interact with people if you expect to have a productive conversation. If you aren't hoping for a productive conversation, it makes a lot more sense though. > As I said, the amount of Rust posts here is disaproppriate to the amount of languages that are available Which implies all languages should get equal representation. Why would that be the case? > Somehow it reminds me to the Cambridge Analytica case, a small amount of people (bots) manipulating the public opinion. :) Or perhaps your opinion doesn't reflect the public norm much, or at least the HN norm, or even just the selection bias you see from the exclusion of people that immediately decided an article about Rust wasn't interesting to them, so they didn't visit. Good allusion to current scary topical event though. > But please, I am more then happy if you show me, I am wrong, what is so cool in Rust, that you can't pull with c++? Oh, now people are supposed to take on faith you have an open mind about this, and as long as you're shown something as you consider objectively "cool", you're happy to change your opinion? I'm not sure I'm convinced. > And if you can't give a reasonable answer, why inventing a new language? Rather write it as a new conding standard. Or create new stl with your new paradigm. Or completely reinvent the types using a new library/headers. Why bother wasting time and reinventing what already works (profit? ;) ), and it works great (you can use it as an former VBA developer or as a guru, same language, different skill set, different features used). All covered many times before on HN. Here's the simple answer: Every one of those changes means you have to learn a mostly new language while also being mostly incompatible with existing hardware, so why not just go farther and get some real guarantees out of the changes instead of just slightly better usability? Guess where that ends up...

by _o_ 9y ago

jjnoakes 9y ago

> it is really sad that you get downvoted based on your opinion That's not really what is happening. I'm guessing you are getting downvoted for a few specific things: * "If you want [...] small binaries, rust is just wrong" * "[Rust is not close to processor instructions]" * "I think go has beaten rust at anything relevant" * "Rust has become hacker news click bait" The general tone of your comment is a bit inflammatory, you make some claims with no reasoning, and you aren't contributing much to the discussion (even if some of these are just "opinions", not all opinions are relevant or useful in the context of any given discussion). I'm also a little surprised that you insult the folks who are reading this thread (folks probably interested in Rust, since it is a Rust thread) and then wonder why they aren't interested in seeing your comment.

_o_ 9y ago
My opinion is right to the spot. The amount of posting for rust is inapropriate to the amount of posts every other language has while it seriously doesn't offer something revolutionary to developers. All fans are having c++ to be able to do same things or more, AFTER they have figured out their limits. c/c++ problem is not type safety but rather that it allows people doing anything. But this is also a huge bonus. (Btw, I don't care about downvoting, but it was somehow strange to see it)
- jjnoakes 9y ago
  You are probably also getting downvotes because, as this comment of yours demonstrates, you don't know enough about Rust to hold an opinion worth discussing.

chc 9y ago

Do you not see how incredibly Blubby the view you're espousing here sounds? You seem surprised by the downvotes, but what you're saying seems to boil down to "Blub is fine." (Not a Rust developer, BTW, just somebody who already knows C and thinks it sounds interesting.)

_o_ 9y ago
Naaah, I just don't tend to be politically correct, the downvotes (roughly the same amount for all my posts here) are probably from the guys doing the Rust PR here and some sound reasoning is not doing them any favor. :) As I said, the amount of Rust posts here is disaproppriate to the amount of languages that are available and as Rust is not really much different to what you can do with c++ (just stop using pointers and you are there...), it just feels strange. Somehow it reminds me to the Cambridge Analytica case, a small amount of people (bots) manipulating the public opinion. :) But please, I am more then happy if you show me, I am wrong, what is so cool in Rust, that you can't pull with c++? And if you can't give a reasonable answer, why inventing a new language? Rather write it as a new conding standard. Or create new stl with your new paradigm. Or completely reinvent the types using a new library/headers. Why bother wasting time and reinventing what already works (profit? ;) ), and it works great (you can use it as an former VBA developer or as a guru, same language, different skill set, different features used).
- kbenson 9y ago
  > Naaah, I just don't tend to be politically correct Which combined with your actual statements sounds to me like you're saying "I don't tend to care if what I'm saying strongly is wrong because I'm comfortable espousing my opinions as overly broad assertions of fact regardless of accuracy or counterarguments." That is, to put it bluntly, just a nice way of saying "I'm an asshole, and I'm okay with that." It's not a particularly useful way to interact with people if you expect to have a productive conversation. If you aren't hoping for a productive conversation, it makes a lot more sense though. > As I said, the amount of Rust posts here is disaproppriate to the amount of languages that are available Which implies all languages should get equal representation. Why would that be the case? > Somehow it reminds me to the Cambridge Analytica case, a small amount of people (bots) manipulating the public opinion. :) Or perhaps your opinion doesn't reflect the public norm much, or at least the HN norm, or even just the selection bias you see from the exclusion of people that immediately decided an article about Rust wasn't interesting to them, so they didn't visit. Good allusion to current scary topical event though. > But please, I am more then happy if you show me, I am wrong, what is so cool in Rust, that you can't pull with c++? Oh, now people are supposed to take on faith you have an open mind about this, and as long as you're shown something as you consider objectively "cool", you're happy to change your opinion? I'm not sure I'm convinced. > And if you can't give a reasonable answer, why inventing a new language? Rather write it as a new conding standard. Or create new stl with your new paradigm. Or completely reinvent the types using a new library/headers. Why bother wasting time and reinventing what already works (profit? ;) ), and it works great (you can use it as an former VBA developer or as a guru, same language, different skill set, different features used). All covered many times before on HN. Here's the simple answer: Every one of those changes means you have to learn a mostly new language while also being mostly incompatible with existing hardware, so why not just go farther and get some real guarantees out of the changes instead of just slightly better usability? Guess where that ends up...