5 ms·
Thanks for the thoughtful post. I do have a question, that maybe you can answer? > The languages are all turing-compatible anyway, so it's not about what can
by bb88 8y ago
Thanks for the thoughtful post. I do have a question, that maybe you can answer?
> The languages are all turing-compatible anyway, so it's not about what can be done, it's about what approaches does the language make easy and promote.
Turing completeness is kinda besides the point. We probably wouldn't be talking about it on HN if it wasn't. :)
I guess what I'm wondering is does Rust encourage simpler but possibly slower data structures, or are there some complex data structures which are simpler to ensure safety than other simpler ones?
In other words, does Rust encourage simplicity at the cost of speed?
- steveklabnik 8y agoAs with all performance questions, the answer is “it depends.” For a look into this question, see http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2018/09/28/the-relative-performance-of-c-and-rust/ http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2018/09/28/the-relative-performa...
- bb88 8y agoHey thanks for the response. I'm happy that rust has a good set of performant data structures, but on the other I feel like it's too soon to say Rust is the big winner here as the author does. I've been very skeptical on fantastical claims by language promoters. But taking the pain out of making common data structures is a good start.
- steveklabnik 8y agoI think if you'll look into the author's credentials he is far from a "language promoter."