3 ms·
I understand that, I posted my response becasue the OC was presenting Rust as a replacement for Go but they are very different languages with different tradeoff
by rhodysurf 8y ago
I understand that, I posted my response becasue the OC was presenting Rust as a replacement for Go but they are very different languages with different tradeoffs
- ilovecaching 8y agoActually, the Go team even bills Go as a systems language. I think if you're going to consider Go, you should also consider what you could get with Rust. Sure the upfront investment in Rust higher, Go is almost too small, but the upfront cost of Rust is amortized via the hours you save with all the abstractions and performance you get right out of the box.
- steveklabnik 8y agoThey’ve moved away from “systems” as a moniker, and Rust slowly is too. It’s just too confusing of a term these days, and nobody knows what it actually means, so it’s not useful.
- pjmlp 8y agoI would say if one can write OSes, device drivers, debuggers, compilers, target bare metal deployments on language X, then it is a systems language, regardless of what label people put on it.
- pvg 8y agoThe problem with that is it's a narrowing of the 'historical' use of the term and just confuses things further. The Go (and now Rust, it seems) people are right to move away from it.
- kjeetgill 8y agoEven when Go started and used the term I don't think this is what they meant by it.
- pjmlp 8y agoWell given its use in Fucshia TCP/IP stack, file system management tooling, Android GPU debugger, not everyone at Google thinks like that. Likewise those universities doing OS research in Go, submitting their findings to USENIX.