4 ms·
Since Rust is a memory safe language with nearly the same performance as C
by jerheinze 7y ago
Since Rust is a memory safe language with nearly the same performance as C
- frutiger 7y agoEDIT: Parent commenter edited the comment to append "with the same performance as C", so you can ignore my reply. So is Python, JavaScript, Java, OCaml, Haskell... A more distinguishing feature of Rust is not only that it is memory safe but also that it doesn’t have a GC. In any case the presence of a single unsafe block can make the program no longer memory safe. Of course, if used appropriately, it vastly reduces the audit surface compared to something like C++.
- Someone1234 7y agoNone of those have nearly the same performance as C.
- chronogram 7y agoIs GC a negative? I’ve yet to see anyone go “well I would’ve written this in Golang but it’s got GC”. Even that new Windows driver style, where it’s split in two, can have half of it being GC’d, right? Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Driver_Frameworks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Driver_Frameworks at least.
- saagarjha 7y ago> I’ve yet to see anyone go “well I would’ve written this in Golang but it’s got GC”. This is a dealbreaker in a lot of contexts where garbage collection pauses would be unacceptable.
- ncmncm 7y agoYes, GC is a negative. There is a huge literature in measures to mitigate its negatives. These always involve trading off one against another, and libraries are frequently incompatible with any particular mix of them.
- BubRoss 7y agoA GC is literally the only reason I haven't tried go.