6 ms·

Yeah, there is. It is called Go. Well, while my answer is not meant to be serious, Go started as "C with some improvements", and the three person team who firs

by bigato 8y ago

Yeah, there is. It is called Go. Well, while my answer is not meant to be serious, Go started as "C with some improvements", and the three person team who first wrote it had among them Ken Thompson, one of the first users of C. Because it is garbage collected, it mostly abstracts away the memory allocation from the programmer. There's penalty in performance, though. It's a trade-off that allows the programmer to not think much about it. Go favors simplicity over speed while Rust tries to have speed as a main goal, and sometimes the tradeoff is more complexity.

isaachier 8y ago
Go will never be nearly as ubiquitous as C. It's plug-ins API is terrible. Rust users definitely don't want a GC language to replace C.
- bigato 8y ago
  I didn't say it will, nor did OP say that he wanted the alternative to be as ubiquitous as C. When you refer to Go plug-ins API, do you mean this[1]? Because I wrote a fair amount of Go and wasn't even aware of this package. And while I don't know whether it is terrible or not, I'm pretty sure this package in particular is not relevant for most Go applications. So maybe you meant something else? I didn't say Rust users want a GC language to replace C, I don't know where this is coming from. [1] https://golang.org/pkg/plugin/ https://golang.org/pkg/plugin/
  - isaachier 8y ago
    Suggesting another language implies that language is essentially just a variant of C and can be used in any situation as C. The OP was asking why there is no (mainstream?) variant of C with built-in memory safety. Suggesting Go implies Go is a direct replacement for C in most cases, which it is not. Regarding plugins, yes that is the package I am referring to. The idea of dynamic loading is completely ignored in the Go programming language but it is used in many, many other languages (i.e. Java, Python, Lua). Go's support for this feature is lacking and should be fixed for it to interact with other languages.
shp0ngle 8y ago
Go is not "memory safe C". Go has garbage collector and that is not zero cost. Rust has zero cost abstractions, so Rust is sort-of "memory safe C". However, Rust is notoriously hard to learn, read and write in. So that sort of shows you that desugning low-level, zero-cost language is HARD
- bigato 8y ago
  The OP didn't ask for zero cost abstractions. Furthermore, maybe "zero-cost" is not the best way to describe Rust abstraction; they may be zero cost for the machine at runtime, in exchange for a bigger mental burden on the programmer, thus being better labeled as a trade-off in more speed in exchange for more complexity. Whether this trade-off is worth it, will depend on some factors like the use case and the programmers involved. And the OP was actually complaining about the added complexity, thus my answer being Go.
  - steveklabnik 8y ago
    > Furthermore, maybe "zero-cost" is not the best way to describe Rust abstraction "Zero-cost" has always been about runtime cost. Other costs are not part of the slogan. Everything always has a cost!
    - majewsky 8y ago
      And notably, Rust didn't start the "zero-cost abstraction" meme, C++ did.
      - steveklabnik 8y ago
        Yup!
  - RaleyField 8y ago
    > bigger mental burden on the programmer Only sometimes. For complex enough problems I think mental burden of writing and maintaining software in less complex language will become more burdensome than the intrinsic burden that comes with more complex language.
dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
> It is called Go. I'd argue it's called D. Go and C are two quite different languages. Whereas if you've been coding in C you can easily switch to D and benefit from safer constructs instantly, almost without feeling a difference.
- bigato 8y ago
  I don't know much about D to know whether this is true, but you definitely can switch easily from C to Go.
  - dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
    Can you use existing C binary libraries directly from Go?
    - bigato 8y ago
      Yes, you can https://golang.org/cmd/cgo/ https://golang.org/cmd/cgo/
      - dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
        Seems a bit more convoluted than in D.

by bigato 8y ago

isaachier 8y ago

Go will never be nearly as ubiquitous as C. It's plug-ins API is terrible. Rust users definitely don't want a GC language to replace C.

bigato 8y ago
I didn't say it will, nor did OP say that he wanted the alternative to be as ubiquitous as C. When you refer to Go plug-ins API, do you mean this[1]? Because I wrote a fair amount of Go and wasn't even aware of this package. And while I don't know whether it is terrible or not, I'm pretty sure this package in particular is not relevant for most Go applications. So maybe you meant something else? I didn't say Rust users want a GC language to replace C, I don't know where this is coming from. [1] https://golang.org/pkg/plugin/ https://golang.org/pkg/plugin/
- isaachier 8y ago
  Suggesting another language implies that language is essentially just a variant of C and can be used in any situation as C. The OP was asking why there is no (mainstream?) variant of C with built-in memory safety. Suggesting Go implies Go is a direct replacement for C in most cases, which it is not. Regarding plugins, yes that is the package I am referring to. The idea of dynamic loading is completely ignored in the Go programming language but it is used in many, many other languages (i.e. Java, Python, Lua). Go's support for this feature is lacking and should be fixed for it to interact with other languages.

shp0ngle 8y ago

Go is not "memory safe C". Go has garbage collector and that is not zero cost. Rust has zero cost abstractions, so Rust is sort-of "memory safe C". However, Rust is notoriously hard to learn, read and write in. So that sort of shows you that desugning low-level, zero-cost language is HARD

bigato 8y ago
The OP didn't ask for zero cost abstractions. Furthermore, maybe "zero-cost" is not the best way to describe Rust abstraction; they may be zero cost for the machine at runtime, in exchange for a bigger mental burden on the programmer, thus being better labeled as a trade-off in more speed in exchange for more complexity. Whether this trade-off is worth it, will depend on some factors like the use case and the programmers involved. And the OP was actually complaining about the added complexity, thus my answer being Go.
- steveklabnik 8y ago
  > Furthermore, maybe "zero-cost" is not the best way to describe Rust abstraction "Zero-cost" has always been about runtime cost. Other costs are not part of the slogan. Everything always has a cost!
  - majewsky 8y ago
    And notably, Rust didn't start the "zero-cost abstraction" meme, C++ did.
    - steveklabnik 8y ago
      Yup!
- RaleyField 8y ago
  > bigger mental burden on the programmer Only sometimes. For complex enough problems I think mental burden of writing and maintaining software in less complex language will become more burdensome than the intrinsic burden that comes with more complex language.

dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago

> It is called Go. I'd argue it's called D. Go and C are two quite different languages. Whereas if you've been coding in C you can easily switch to D and benefit from safer constructs instantly, almost without feeling a difference.

bigato 8y ago
I don't know much about D to know whether this is true, but you definitely can switch easily from C to Go.
- dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
  Can you use existing C binary libraries directly from Go?
  - bigato 8y ago
    Yes, you can https://golang.org/cmd/cgo/ https://golang.org/cmd/cgo/
    - dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
      Seems a bit more convoluted than in D.