3 ms·

There are a few. Rust is a very complex language; it's essentially a modern take on C++, and it fully adopts C++'s design philosophy. This has several implicati

by pron 7y ago

There are a few. Rust is a very complex language; it's essentially a modern take on C++, and it fully adopts C++'s design philosophy. This has several implications for embedded development. For one, it makes it hard to write custom compilers and direct backends (AFAIK Rust currently only targets LLVM and WASM). For another, it makes certain formal and informal analyses and guarantees hard (this is perhaps ironic given Rust's emphasis on sound safety, but sound static analysis tools are easier to write for C). It appeals to those who already like C++, but embedded developers aren't crazy about C++; C still rules that space. Zig is a very simple language. Its strength is not in the features it has, but in the features it lacks. Also, Zig encourages stricter control over allocation than Rust, and it's C interop is virtually seamless. Zig is very young and may well end up disappointing, but its careful selection of features that provide what seems to me to be a great combination of power and simplicity (a single feature represented by a single keyword does the work of generics, value templates, constexprs and macros, all without the complications macros introduce). Anyway, I find it to be a very interesting take on what modern low-level programming can be.

bluejekyll 7y ago
> Rust is a very complex language; it's essentially a modern take on C++, and it fully adopts C++'s design philosophy. This is a false and inflammatory statement, and unhelpful. It's more complex than C, but has very different set of features and type capabilities from C++ that makes it far simpler. Even for C, I would say it really is a different set of complexity. Rust brings that complexity to the fore-front, whereas C and C++ both have a significant amount of hidden complexity. > It appeals to those who already like C++ Perhaps, but I absolutely abhor C++ (after years of working with it) and completely love Rust, so :shrug: > Zig is a very simple language It is. It also doesn't make many of the same safety guarantees as Rust. So there are trade-offs. > I find it to be a very interesting take on what modern low-level programming can be. As do I! Though, I do think people keep looking for greener fields unnecessarily.
- pron 7y ago
  > This is a false and inflammatory statement I think it's neither false nor inflammatory, but a neutral, objective observation. I think that if you asked people what languages in more-or-less regular use are about as complex as Rust (or more), they'll give you a very short list (I can think of no more than three: C++, Ada and Scala). That does not make it bad or unsuitable -- in fact, it might well be great for some -- but it does make it less attractive to those who value language simplicity. > It also doesn't make many of the same safety guarantees as Rust. So there are trade-offs. Sure, and if a low-level programmer's primary goal is to write software that's free of certain technical bugs that correspond to C's undefined behavior, then a language that can more-or-less guarantee they don't exist (with some caveats) may be the best way to achieve that. But I don't think that is most people's primary goal. Even for those who value correctness in high-assurance domains, the elimination of undefined behavior, which always comes at a cost, is not necessarily the best way of achieving correctness. Zig, too, puts an emphasis on writing safe code, it just goes about it a different way than ensuring certain guarantees, soundly, in the language itself. Now, let me take this opportunity to also explain why it's uncertain that Rust's approach to correctness is the better one. I saw some report from Microsoft that 70% of their security bugs are due to undefined behavior in C++. Let's assume that all UBs are equally to blame, we'll assume that reducing security bugs is the only thing we care about, and we'll assume that Rust completely eliminates all UB (which isn't necessarily true because of unsafe and because there could be bugs in Rust and/or LLVM, but I'm willing to accept that Rust's approach is the best at eliminating UB). By choosing Rust and developing the software at cost X (it doesn't matter for now whether X is smaller or greater than the cost of developing in C++) we eliminate at 70% of security bugs. Now, there can certainly be a different approach that doesn't eliminate all UB and still reduces security bugs by more than 80%. I'm not saying we know for what that approach is, but what I am saying is that it is not at all certain -- it has neither been justified theoretically nor confirmed empirically -- that soundly eliminating all UB, which comes at some cost, is the best approach of reducing those bugs. I, for one, believe that Zig's approach -- of language simplicity plus some strong safety features -- is a better approach to correctness than Rust's. I don't know that, I just believe that, but those who believe that Rust's approach to safety is better don't have stronger grounds to stand on. So Zig does not trade off correctness; it trades of the sound guarantee for lack of UB, which isn't a goal in an of itself. It's a means to achieving some goal, and some may believe it's the best means, but there is so far little evidence to suggest that it is. Yeah, Rust is better than Zig at eliminating UB, but that doesn't mean it's better at correctness. It could well be worse. > Perhaps, but I absolutely abhor C++ (after years of working with it) and completely love Rust, so :shrug: Rust is an improvement over C++, but C++ isn't a hit in embedded development, either. > I do think people keep looking for greener fields unnecessarily. Why unnecessarily? You don't like C++ but found what you want in Rust; I'm not crazy about C++, either, but Rust doesn't even begin to solve my main problems with C++ (a "better C++" is not what I need), so why is my hope for greener fields less necessary than yours? I would be happy if people gradually shifted from C++ to Rust -- at least we'll have fewer UBs -- but I don't think it will ultimately make a big change in low-level programming; maybe in some sub-niches of it. I think Rust's emphasis on sound safety guarantees came at a cost elsewhere, and that cost is too heavy for some. Some like it, some prefer a different approach. I have no problem with people who like Rust, and they shouldn't have a problem with those who don't. Anyway, you asked why some might not see Rust as the answer to their wishes, and I answered.
- zozbot234 7y ago
  > This is a false and inflammatory statement, and unhelpful. It's complex enough that we don't have a formal model of the full language, which is definitely an issue. Traits are perhaps the most complex feature (ignoring things like macros, etc.) and they've caused quite a few unsoundness problems in the past.

by pron 7y ago

bluejekyll 7y ago

> Rust is a very complex language; it's essentially a modern take on C++, and it fully adopts C++'s design philosophy. This is a false and inflammatory statement, and unhelpful. It's more complex than C, but has very different set of features and type capabilities from C++ that makes it far simpler. Even for C, I would say it really is a different set of complexity. Rust brings that complexity to the fore-front, whereas C and C++ both have a significant amount of hidden complexity. > It appeals to those who already like C++ Perhaps, but I absolutely abhor C++ (after years of working with it) and completely love Rust, so :shrug: > Zig is a very simple language It is. It also doesn't make many of the same safety guarantees as Rust. So there are trade-offs. > I find it to be a very interesting take on what modern low-level programming can be. As do I! Though, I do think people keep looking for greener fields unnecessarily.

pron 7y ago
> This is a false and inflammatory statement I think it's neither false nor inflammatory, but a neutral, objective observation. I think that if you asked people what languages in more-or-less regular use are about as complex as Rust (or more), they'll give you a very short list (I can think of no more than three: C++, Ada and Scala). That does not make it bad or unsuitable -- in fact, it might well be great for some -- but it does make it less attractive to those who value language simplicity. > It also doesn't make many of the same safety guarantees as Rust. So there are trade-offs. Sure, and if a low-level programmer's primary goal is to write software that's free of certain technical bugs that correspond to C's undefined behavior, then a language that can more-or-less guarantee they don't exist (with some caveats) may be the best way to achieve that. But I don't think that is most people's primary goal. Even for those who value correctness in high-assurance domains, the elimination of undefined behavior, which always comes at a cost, is not necessarily the best way of achieving correctness. Zig, too, puts an emphasis on writing safe code, it just goes about it a different way than ensuring certain guarantees, soundly, in the language itself. Now, let me take this opportunity to also explain why it's uncertain that Rust's approach to correctness is the better one. I saw some report from Microsoft that 70% of their security bugs are due to undefined behavior in C++. Let's assume that all UBs are equally to blame, we'll assume that reducing security bugs is the only thing we care about, and we'll assume that Rust completely eliminates all UB (which isn't necessarily true because of unsafe and because there could be bugs in Rust and/or LLVM, but I'm willing to accept that Rust's approach is the best at eliminating UB). By choosing Rust and developing the software at cost X (it doesn't matter for now whether X is smaller or greater than the cost of developing in C++) we eliminate at 70% of security bugs. Now, there can certainly be a different approach that doesn't eliminate all UB and still reduces security bugs by more than 80%. I'm not saying we know for what that approach is, but what I am saying is that it is not at all certain -- it has neither been justified theoretically nor confirmed empirically -- that soundly eliminating all UB, which comes at some cost, is the best approach of reducing those bugs. I, for one, believe that Zig's approach -- of language simplicity plus some strong safety features -- is a better approach to correctness than Rust's. I don't know that, I just believe that, but those who believe that Rust's approach to safety is better don't have stronger grounds to stand on. So Zig does not trade off correctness; it trades of the sound guarantee for lack of UB, which isn't a goal in an of itself. It's a means to achieving some goal, and some may believe it's the best means, but there is so far little evidence to suggest that it is. Yeah, Rust is better than Zig at eliminating UB, but that doesn't mean it's better at correctness. It could well be worse. > Perhaps, but I absolutely abhor C++ (after years of working with it) and completely love Rust, so :shrug: Rust is an improvement over C++, but C++ isn't a hit in embedded development, either. > I do think people keep looking for greener fields unnecessarily. Why unnecessarily? You don't like C++ but found what you want in Rust; I'm not crazy about C++, either, but Rust doesn't even begin to solve my main problems with C++ (a "better C++" is not what I need), so why is my hope for greener fields less necessary than yours? I would be happy if people gradually shifted from C++ to Rust -- at least we'll have fewer UBs -- but I don't think it will ultimately make a big change in low-level programming; maybe in some sub-niches of it. I think Rust's emphasis on sound safety guarantees came at a cost elsewhere, and that cost is too heavy for some. Some like it, some prefer a different approach. I have no problem with people who like Rust, and they shouldn't have a problem with those who don't. Anyway, you asked why some might not see Rust as the answer to their wishes, and I answered.
zozbot234 7y ago
> This is a false and inflammatory statement, and unhelpful. It's complex enough that we don't have a formal model of the full language, which is definitely an issue. Traits are perhaps the most complex feature (ignoring things like macros, etc.) and they've caused quite a few unsoundness problems in the past.