25 ms·
Reading the conclusion in the PDF, the Rust version is not faster than the C version and not necessarily safer either, since there is plenty of "unsafe" Rust co
by xyproto 8y ago
Reading the conclusion in the PDF, the Rust version is not faster than the C version and not necessarily safer either, since there is plenty of "unsafe" Rust code involved.
While Rust is nice in some areas, I'm not convinced this is anything more than yet another "let's rewrite it in Rust, because I happen to like Rust" article.
Angry comments defending Rust incoming in 3..2..
- dswalter 8y agoSince it's part of what looks like an overall project (ixy) to show how it's possible to do this sort of low-level programming in a variety of languages (the roadmap includes js and python), the developer experience is an important component of what they're trying to shed light on.
- kungtotte 8y agoHow is less than 10% "plenty"? Especially considering that 100% of C-code involving memory access is inherently unsafe using the Rust definition of the term.
- red75prime 8y ago> not necessarily safer either Rust version will not be safer if the authors did 10 times more errors per line than average C programmer.
- red75prime 8y agoRust version has 10% of lines marked as `unsafe`. Programmers need to make 10 times more errors per line to introduce the same number of errors that are considered unsafe in Rust (memory corruption, data races, double frees, deallocated memory usage). I'm not sure what's wrong with this statement.