4 ms·

This was more interesting than the average "rewrite in Rust" blog post. Specifically I thought the part about how having compiler-enforced memory safety allows

This was more interesting than the average "rewrite in Rust" blog post. Specifically I thought the part about how having compiler-enforced memory safety allows for the use of patterns that would otherwise be difficult to use safely interesting.

epage 7y ago
> compiler-enforced memory safety allows for the use of patterns that would otherwise be difficult to use safely I have to say, this has been amazing. For context, I'm a C++ developer who has had minimal run-ins with the borrow checker because I was already used to thinking about ownership. I refactored a large-ish Rust crate I maintain to use references for a fundamental type. I would have considered it irresponsible to do that with a C++ codebase unless absolutely required. Even if I did the upfront analysis to make sure it was safe, I'd need to re-do that exercise for every architectural change, at least. Instead with Rust, I just tried it on a whim, knowing the borrow checker had my back.
- pjmlp 7y ago
  In C++ you can have some help via static analysis. Unfortunately very few care to actually use them. https://www.bfilipek.com/2019/12/cpp-status-2019.html?m=1#what-additional-tools-do-you-use https://www.bfilipek.com/2019/12/cpp-status-2019.html?m=1#wh... As I learned since Turbo Pascal days, if it isn't part of the language, it seldom gets used.
  - roca 7y ago
    That's quite right. But also there is a big difference between "the static checker will probably catch errors of this kind" and "the compiler will certainly catch errors of this kind". The latter is far more liberating.
Avshalom 7y ago
worth pointing out, i think, that that was the original justification for rust: that by building a safe language that still gave you the level of control you'd expect from a C(++) they could experiment with all sorts of otherwise difficult and subtle concurrent code to figure out what would actually work/help. Much like Erlang's concurrency fell out as a consequence of needing to be confidently write high availability code, Rust's general safety falls out of needing to write concurrent code fearlessly.
- masklinn 7y ago
  Oddly enough that was not the original justification, Rust was initially conceived as something closer to Swift. It’s really the accretions community which saw the possibility to fulfill a need and ran with it, and of course Grayson Hoare & co which accepted / allowed it. Rust used to have split stacks and green threads for instance, and had special syntax for GC’d values (and unique pointers TBF).

epage 7y ago

> compiler-enforced memory safety allows for the use of patterns that would otherwise be difficult to use safely I have to say, this has been amazing. For context, I'm a C++ developer who has had minimal run-ins with the borrow checker because I was already used to thinking about ownership. I refactored a large-ish Rust crate I maintain to use references for a fundamental type. I would have considered it irresponsible to do that with a C++ codebase unless absolutely required. Even if I did the upfront analysis to make sure it was safe, I'd need to re-do that exercise for every architectural change, at least. Instead with Rust, I just tried it on a whim, knowing the borrow checker had my back.

pjmlp 7y ago
In C++ you can have some help via static analysis. Unfortunately very few care to actually use them. https://www.bfilipek.com/2019/12/cpp-status-2019.html?m=1#what-additional-tools-do-you-use https://www.bfilipek.com/2019/12/cpp-status-2019.html?m=1#wh... As I learned since Turbo Pascal days, if it isn't part of the language, it seldom gets used.
- roca 7y ago
  That's quite right. But also there is a big difference between "the static checker will probably catch errors of this kind" and "the compiler will certainly catch errors of this kind". The latter is far more liberating.

Avshalom 7y ago

worth pointing out, i think, that that was the original justification for rust: that by building a safe language that still gave you the level of control you'd expect from a C(++) they could experiment with all sorts of otherwise difficult and subtle concurrent code to figure out what would actually work/help. Much like Erlang's concurrency fell out as a consequence of needing to be confidently write high availability code, Rust's general safety falls out of needing to write concurrent code fearlessly.

masklinn 7y ago
Oddly enough that was not the original justification, Rust was initially conceived as something closer to Swift. It’s really the accretions community which saw the possibility to fulfill a need and ran with it, and of course Grayson Hoare & co which accepted / allowed it. Rust used to have split stacks and green threads for instance, and had special syntax for GC’d values (and unique pointers TBF).