5 ms·

Why would you think that Rust is "far simpler" than C++? Exactly the same concepts (with extras on Rust's side because of the ML-like constructs) must be learne

by blub 8y ago

Why would you think that Rust is "far simpler" than C++? Exactly the same concepts (with extras on Rust's side because of the ML-like constructs) must be learned for both, except they're distributed differently on the learning curve. And I wouldn't say that Rust's safer than Java either. Memory access errors are basically non-existant in Java and it has quite robust concurrency primitives and libraries.

bluejekyll 8y ago
That’s based on my experience of working with C++ on and off over the last 18 years and reattempting to learn some of the modern pieces of it, as compared to learning and working with Rust over the last 3. I find Rust simpler, more concise, and nearly no footguns. Edit, I didn’t see your Java comment: > I wouldn't say that Rust's safer than Java either. Here’s why it is safer: It has the same set of guarantees about memory safety as Java. In terms of concurrency, it is safer because of the single mutable reference guarantees across threads, enabled by a better type system. The type system is stronger, which allows for more details about code to be put into types, like algebraic data types of Rust, without the limitations of Java’s non-generic enums. And the big one: no bare nulls allowed. This reduces a huge set of logic errors. Now Java is getting Value types in a future release which will allow for a true Option type in Java, ie one that cannot itself be null, the other points still stand. On top of that, in large applications the GC can become an Achilles Heel, where it eventually pauses the application with dire consequences. Rust of course has no GC. And a great side effect of this is that Drop (java Finalizers) actually work in Rust, which is amazing. Basically for these reasons, Rust is safer than Java.
- blub 8y ago
  Well, that's still personal opinion, even if grounded in experience. My personal opinion is that they have similar complexity, but in general Rust decides to clearly define behaviour as much as possible and fail fast, preferably at compile time. This can be seen when comparing features: memory management is there (supported by the borrow checker), smart pointers are there, references & pointers are there, generics are there (even if not exactly the same), integer and floating point handling are there, concurrency is there (compile-time checking is nice), macros are there (albeit different and perhaps less error prone), string types are more complex than cpp, enums are more complex (but also more powerful), operator overloading is there, iterators are clearly more complex (and the functional aspects in general), etc. So the average programmer will have to learn a similar amount of concepts or even more in Rust's case. Where Rust is indeed simpler is error handling and building. --- I figured you would bring up concurrency, and while Rust's compile-time verification is really nice, Java also has a simpler form in threading annotations. Additionally, I believe it's rare to use such low-level primitives in Java. Nulls (and type system holes in general) are a correctness issue, not a safety issue, unless we want to argue that all bugs are safety issues. GC pauses are a performance issue, as you already know. Saying that Rust threading is safer than Java's is technically correct and Rust is probably a bit safer than Java because of that, but it's hard to argue that Rust should be chosen for a project because of that (this is the whole point of saying X is safer than Y). Java is super-simple to learn compared to Rust.
  - bluejekyll 8y ago
    > that's still personal opinion, even if grounded in experience I just wanted to make it clear how and why I've formed that opinion. > unless we want to argue that all bugs are safety issues Yes, I can definitely be accused of expanding the definition of safety to include all things that cause programs to crash in horrible ways. I look at it as differing levels of guarantees the language makes for you, and Rust makes many more at compile time than others. This adds to the learning curve you mention, is it worth it? Completely depends on if you see those guarantees as valuable.
whyever 8y ago
> Why would you think that Rust is "far simpler" than C++? C++ as a language is a lot more complicated. It has a lot of features with weird corner cases that interact in unfortunate ways. > And I wouldn't say that Rust's safer than Java either. Depends on what you mean with safe. If you mean memory safe, then they are about as safe. Rust has fewer runtime failures due to concurrency and null pointers though.
- kibwen 8y ago
  Not sure why the above comment is downvoted. The number of features in C++ isn't the root of the problem with C++. The real problem with C++ is that it both has a lot of features and that all of those features interact in subtle and surprising ways. Even if Rust had as many features as C++ (which it doesn't, not by a long shot; Rust is a medium-sized language like Python (though with a far less forgiving learning curve than Python)), one of the design philosophies of Rust is that features should interact in predictable ways, and if two features can't interact in predictable ways, then the compiler should do its damndest to prevent them from being used together and explain why.
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    The biggest issue is not how complicated it is, rather there is no good way to prevent people to write C in C++.
  - civility 8y ago
    Rust also has features which interact in subtle and surprising ways. Generics and operator traits bumping into the "coherence" rules is my personal pet peave. I doubt any user would have predicted that interaction, and even though the compiler gives a detailed pointer to why, it's cold comfort. Honestly, after hating C++ for years, trying to use Rust made me appreciate more about C++. I wish someone would make a language which took the best parts of both.
    - kibwen 8y ago
      > even though the compiler gives a detailed pointer to why, it's cold comfort We'll just have to agree to disagree, because having the compiler watch my back and preemptively guard against unforeseen pitfalls is about the warmest comfort I could ask for. :P
dralley 8y ago
You can still get NullPointerExceptions in Java, frequently. Rust doesn't let you do that, at least not without conciously deciding to use unwrap() everywhere.

by blub 8y ago

bluejekyll 8y ago

That’s based on my experience of working with C++ on and off over the last 18 years and reattempting to learn some of the modern pieces of it, as compared to learning and working with Rust over the last 3. I find Rust simpler, more concise, and nearly no footguns. Edit, I didn’t see your Java comment: > I wouldn't say that Rust's safer than Java either. Here’s why it is safer: It has the same set of guarantees about memory safety as Java. In terms of concurrency, it is safer because of the single mutable reference guarantees across threads, enabled by a better type system. The type system is stronger, which allows for more details about code to be put into types, like algebraic data types of Rust, without the limitations of Java’s non-generic enums. And the big one: no bare nulls allowed. This reduces a huge set of logic errors. Now Java is getting Value types in a future release which will allow for a true Option type in Java, ie one that cannot itself be null, the other points still stand. On top of that, in large applications the GC can become an Achilles Heel, where it eventually pauses the application with dire consequences. Rust of course has no GC. And a great side effect of this is that Drop (java Finalizers) actually work in Rust, which is amazing. Basically for these reasons, Rust is safer than Java.

blub 8y ago
Well, that's still personal opinion, even if grounded in experience. My personal opinion is that they have similar complexity, but in general Rust decides to clearly define behaviour as much as possible and fail fast, preferably at compile time. This can be seen when comparing features: memory management is there (supported by the borrow checker), smart pointers are there, references & pointers are there, generics are there (even if not exactly the same), integer and floating point handling are there, concurrency is there (compile-time checking is nice), macros are there (albeit different and perhaps less error prone), string types are more complex than cpp, enums are more complex (but also more powerful), operator overloading is there, iterators are clearly more complex (and the functional aspects in general), etc. So the average programmer will have to learn a similar amount of concepts or even more in Rust's case. Where Rust is indeed simpler is error handling and building. --- I figured you would bring up concurrency, and while Rust's compile-time verification is really nice, Java also has a simpler form in threading annotations. Additionally, I believe it's rare to use such low-level primitives in Java. Nulls (and type system holes in general) are a correctness issue, not a safety issue, unless we want to argue that all bugs are safety issues. GC pauses are a performance issue, as you already know. Saying that Rust threading is safer than Java's is technically correct and Rust is probably a bit safer than Java because of that, but it's hard to argue that Rust should be chosen for a project because of that (this is the whole point of saying X is safer than Y). Java is super-simple to learn compared to Rust.
- bluejekyll 8y ago
  > that's still personal opinion, even if grounded in experience I just wanted to make it clear how and why I've formed that opinion. > unless we want to argue that all bugs are safety issues Yes, I can definitely be accused of expanding the definition of safety to include all things that cause programs to crash in horrible ways. I look at it as differing levels of guarantees the language makes for you, and Rust makes many more at compile time than others. This adds to the learning curve you mention, is it worth it? Completely depends on if you see those guarantees as valuable.

whyever 8y ago

> Why would you think that Rust is "far simpler" than C++? C++ as a language is a lot more complicated. It has a lot of features with weird corner cases that interact in unfortunate ways. > And I wouldn't say that Rust's safer than Java either. Depends on what you mean with safe. If you mean memory safe, then they are about as safe. Rust has fewer runtime failures due to concurrency and null pointers though.

kibwen 8y ago
Not sure why the above comment is downvoted. The number of features in C++ isn't the root of the problem with C++. The real problem with C++ is that it both has a lot of features and that all of those features interact in subtle and surprising ways. Even if Rust had as many features as C++ (which it doesn't, not by a long shot; Rust is a medium-sized language like Python (though with a far less forgiving learning curve than Python)), one of the design philosophies of Rust is that features should interact in predictable ways, and if two features can't interact in predictable ways, then the compiler should do its damndest to prevent them from being used together and explain why.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  The biggest issue is not how complicated it is, rather there is no good way to prevent people to write C in C++.
- civility 8y ago
  Rust also has features which interact in subtle and surprising ways. Generics and operator traits bumping into the "coherence" rules is my personal pet peave. I doubt any user would have predicted that interaction, and even though the compiler gives a detailed pointer to why, it's cold comfort. Honestly, after hating C++ for years, trying to use Rust made me appreciate more about C++. I wish someone would make a language which took the best parts of both.
  - kibwen 8y ago
    > even though the compiler gives a detailed pointer to why, it's cold comfort We'll just have to agree to disagree, because having the compiler watch my back and preemptively guard against unforeseen pitfalls is about the warmest comfort I could ask for. :P

dralley 8y ago

You can still get NullPointerExceptions in Java, frequently. Rust doesn't let you do that, at least not without conciously deciding to use unwrap() everywhere.