43 ms·
JVM, garbage collected, doesn't have zero overhead abstractions. Might as well ask why Scala didn't take over from C++.
by wffurr 7y ago
JVM, garbage collected, doesn't have zero overhead abstractions.
Might as well ask why Scala didn't take over from C++.
- alexandercrohde 7y agoI don't know why you'd be dismissive of that comparison. Scala is more like Rust than any other language he discusses.
- wffurr 7y agoI mean sure, Scala is a great language and has a lot more in common with Rust than most languages, but it's fundamentally designed for a different role than Rust. Rust is designed as a "systems language", whereas Scala's dependence on the JVM is a non-starter for such a role. You could say instead that Rust is a Scala-inspired systems language. Not just Scala, obviously, but by functional programming concepts like algebraic data types and type inference. Rust isn't even really a functional language itself; it's still an imperative language.
- tomlu 7y agoBecause performance is a P0 concern to a lot of people. Rust (and C++) has performance as a primary goal, Scala does not.
- alexandercrohde 7y agoDid you even watch the video? The guy is comparing rust to things like Python which is a pretty silly comparison, relative to scala.
- carlmr 7y agoEverybody knows python, few people know Scala. Isn't that enough of a reason?
- j88439h84 7y ago> JVM, garbage collected, doesn't have zero overhead abstractions. Is it fair to say that the significance of those points are these? no JVM: easier deployment not garbage collected: less latency zero-overhead abstraction: smaller in memory
- wffurr 7y agoYes, and more to the point said qualities make Rust suitable for use in kernel-type systems and embedded progamming, whereas any JVM or other GC and VM based language generally isn't.
- fortran77 7y agoI don't use Rust. But I never considered Scala because of the JVM.