4 ms·

For what it's worth, I used to be big on C, and grew to very dislike C++ (because it's simple insane). Rust is my language of choice for years now. IMO, Rust

by dpc_pw 7y ago

For what it's worth, I used to be big on C, and grew to very dislike C++ (because it's simple insane). Rust is my language of choice for years now. IMO, Rust shares the same inner-simplicity that C has, but combined with ability to build and use bulletproof higher-level abstractions. The same way I roughly knew what machine instructions (roughly) my C code produces, I know what machine instructions my Rust code produces.

dirtydroog 7y ago
Well yes, because LLVM generates the machine instructions
jfkebwjsbx 7y ago
Rust definitely does not share the simplicity of C. It is the equivalent of C++, not C. You can write code which you cannot guess the machine code, as soon as you use any of the abstractions, just like C++.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  Rust’s standard library is about on par with C’s, though.
  - thedance 7y ago
    Rust standard library is dramatically more useful than C’s. C doesn’t offer any kind of collections in its libraries. Every C project just grows its own differently broken hash maps and linked lists.
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      Compared to C++, Rust's libraries are severely anemic, especially in the areas where C++ is strong at such as collections, algorithms, and metaprogramming constructs such as type traits. Rust's standard library is better than C in certain areas–you identified one, which is dictionaries. (Linked lists are hard to provide a useful, performant API for; it's often better to roll your own–especially in C–than rely on a library to do it for you.) But even without including C's POSIX libraries, Rust seems to be missing things like random number generation. I general, yes, I would probably say that I would prefer Rust's standard library over C's, but it's not huge in any sense and much closer to C's than C++'s. In any case, I came into Rust thinking it would be like C++, and ergonomically it certainly is. But its standard library is nothing like C++'s and this caused me disconcertion until I began treating it like C's, and being happy whenever it provided me anything beyond that rather than disappointed whenever it was missing something I found useful.

by dpc_pw 7y ago

dirtydroog 7y ago

Well yes, because LLVM generates the machine instructions

jfkebwjsbx 7y ago

Rust definitely does not share the simplicity of C. It is the equivalent of C++, not C. You can write code which you cannot guess the machine code, as soon as you use any of the abstractions, just like C++.

saagarjha 7y ago
Rust’s standard library is about on par with C’s, though.
- thedance 7y ago
  Rust standard library is dramatically more useful than C’s. C doesn’t offer any kind of collections in its libraries. Every C project just grows its own differently broken hash maps and linked lists.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    Compared to C++, Rust's libraries are severely anemic, especially in the areas where C++ is strong at such as collections, algorithms, and metaprogramming constructs such as type traits. Rust's standard library is better than C in certain areas–you identified one, which is dictionaries. (Linked lists are hard to provide a useful, performant API for; it's often better to roll your own–especially in C–than rely on a library to do it for you.) But even without including C's POSIX libraries, Rust seems to be missing things like random number generation. I general, yes, I would probably say that I would prefer Rust's standard library over C's, but it's not huge in any sense and much closer to C's than C++'s. In any case, I came into Rust thinking it would be like C++, and ergonomically it certainly is. But its standard library is nothing like C++'s and this caused me disconcertion until I began treating it like C's, and being happy whenever it provided me anything beyond that rather than disappointed whenever it was missing something I found useful.