4 ms·

I write/maintain BSPs and RTOSes for a myriad of embedded systems, every day, for the last 15 years. I can't remember the last time I had a bug like the ones me

by scoutt 8y ago

I write/maintain BSPs and RTOSes for a myriad of embedded systems, every day, for the last 15 years. I can't remember the last time I had a bug like the ones mentioned in the article... I look at Rust with enthusiasm, but... if they are targeting "system" developers, the ones already doing that job, the last think they (we) worry about is on doing memory management errors. At some point, memory management becomes an automatic process, you just don't think too much about it. But on the other side, perhaps the scope of a language like Rust is to bring more people from higher layers into developing engines that require performance. The Rust sales-pitch may work on people like a JS programmer but won't click yet on people like me: I just don't want to be baby-sited by a compiler. I also noticed during my entire life that (reasonable) "fear" that C/C++ produces on developers, and the many recipes for the cure. "Script kiddies" as you call them will never target the C/C++ state-of-the-mind, let alone write system-related software: it just too difficult, and boring, and don't want to deal with truly complicated problems. You can't solve a "lazy programmer" problem with a "language" solution. I think they're targeting the wrong audience.

Vinnl 8y ago
> [It] becomes an automatic process, you just don't think too much about it. (...) I just don't want to be baby-sited by a compiler. Interestingly, as a Javascript developer, I see an interesting parallel here with TypeScript. You hear the argument "TypeScript is for people who don't know Javascript" relatively often - which I think is similar to referring to a compiler "baby sitting". Sure, making sure you use the correct types everywhere and don't rely on implicit type casting is an automatic process for me, but that doesn't mean I'm perfect, nor that it doesn't subconsciously still creates a cognitive load - hence why I still greatly appreciate TypeScript, even though it only helps me with things I supposedly already know very well how to do.
Ar-Curunir 8y ago
> the last think they (we) worry about is on doing memory management errors. At some point, memory management becomes an automatic process, you just don't think too much about it. I think the large number of memory-safety bugs in even popular C libraries indicates that this is not the case.
zozbot123 8y ago
> At some point, memory management becomes an automatic process, you just don't think too much about it. The thing with Rust is that this becomes literally true. Because the borrowck pass runs automatically with every Rust compile, and tells you where it could not prove that you're managing memory correctly. And yet, the single biggest obstacle for C/C++ developers trying to move on to Rust is that they keep "fighting with the borrow checker", with only a very low understanding of what it would take to fix their code so that it can pass the automated checks. This does not inspire much confidence.
- scoutt 8y ago
  Exactly. But in the "system" industry that reason only is not worth the effort. I already know how to ride a bicycle "by instinct". Why would I use the training wheels again? just in case? I really hope libraries like libssl and other foundational (but not considered "system") libraries are rewritten in Rust, but also believe that they should not push lower than that (kernel, peripherals, bare-metal).
  - FreeFull 8y ago
    I'm not sure if I'd compare a type system to training wheels. In general, a type system will be able to tell you that you're doing something wrong, but won't be able to correct it. You're still managing the memory/lifetimes yourself. Something like garbage collection would be more like wheels, since it does the work for you.
sifoobar 8y ago
I agree; and there's nothing wrong with not wanting to deal with that level of complexity and hair pulling, I don't blame them. I don't mind Rust either; it doesn't appeal to me, but then many languages don't. If it helps someone move forward, that's a good thing. What isn't working very well is having Rust stuffed down my throat while being lectured by ignorant assholes who don't even know which side is up. That's going out of fashion fast.

by scoutt 8y ago

Vinnl 8y ago

> [It] becomes an automatic process, you just don't think too much about it. (...) I just don't want to be baby-sited by a compiler. Interestingly, as a Javascript developer, I see an interesting parallel here with TypeScript. You hear the argument "TypeScript is for people who don't know Javascript" relatively often - which I think is similar to referring to a compiler "baby sitting". Sure, making sure you use the correct types everywhere and don't rely on implicit type casting is an automatic process for me, but that doesn't mean I'm perfect, nor that it doesn't subconsciously still creates a cognitive load - hence why I still greatly appreciate TypeScript, even though it only helps me with things I supposedly already know very well how to do.

Ar-Curunir 8y ago

> the last think they (we) worry about is on doing memory management errors. At some point, memory management becomes an automatic process, you just don't think too much about it. I think the large number of memory-safety bugs in even popular C libraries indicates that this is not the case.

zozbot123 8y ago

> At some point, memory management becomes an automatic process, you just don't think too much about it. The thing with Rust is that this becomes literally true. Because the borrowck pass runs automatically with every Rust compile, and tells you where it could not prove that you're managing memory correctly. And yet, the single biggest obstacle for C/C++ developers trying to move on to Rust is that they keep "fighting with the borrow checker", with only a very low understanding of what it would take to fix their code so that it can pass the automated checks. This does not inspire much confidence.

scoutt 8y ago
Exactly. But in the "system" industry that reason only is not worth the effort. I already know how to ride a bicycle "by instinct". Why would I use the training wheels again? just in case? I really hope libraries like libssl and other foundational (but not considered "system") libraries are rewritten in Rust, but also believe that they should not push lower than that (kernel, peripherals, bare-metal).
- FreeFull 8y ago
  I'm not sure if I'd compare a type system to training wheels. In general, a type system will be able to tell you that you're doing something wrong, but won't be able to correct it. You're still managing the memory/lifetimes yourself. Something like garbage collection would be more like wheels, since it does the work for you.

sifoobar 8y ago

I agree; and there's nothing wrong with not wanting to deal with that level of complexity and hair pulling, I don't blame them. I don't mind Rust either; it doesn't appeal to me, but then many languages don't. If it helps someone move forward, that's a good thing. What isn't working very well is having Rust stuffed down my throat while being lectured by ignorant assholes who don't even know which side is up. That's going out of fashion fast.