4 ms·

> And Go was announced very close to its 1.0 launch while Rust was announced very, very early in its development cycle. So in reality they actually align neithe

> And Go was announced very close to its 1.0 launch while Rust was announced very, very early in its development cycle. So in reality they actually align neither in timing, nor in target domain. Back when Rust was announced, it was much more similar to Go than it is now, even having a similar runtime for concurrency. Go did a better job than Rust of delivering this paradigm, largely because the Go implementors weren't relying on commodity technologies like LLVM and libuv. As time went on, Rust was given more support by Mozilla, and it evolved into something more suited for browser implementation. It had other major influences at this point: - The constraints of using LLVM. Many projects have failed trying to make LLVM do something that it's bad at doing. At the end of the day, LLVM is good at compiling C++ and things that look like C++, so if you stick to using LLVM and want an efficient language, your language will end up looking more like C++ over time. - The swell of momentum around C++11. All of a sudden, programming idioms from the "Modern C++" movement were becoming mainstream. - The halo of academic research into type-safe systems languages. Very few of the ideas in Rust are new, but some type system features from academia became more palatable for ordinary programmers when combined with the C++11 style.

throwaway894345 7y ago
I've heard this about LLVM a lot in the past; does LLVM recognize its C++-centricity as a problem in delivering on its mission of being a multilingual target platform, or has it tacitly changed its mission to be more-or-less implicitly C++-centric? And specifically, what sway does Rust hold on the LLVM project and its goals?
- swsieber 7y ago
  I would say it's mostly incidental - c++ like things are its biggest use case and get the most feedback.
- cwzwarich 7y ago
  > does LLVM recognize its C++-centricity as a problem in delivering on its mission of being a multilingual target platform, or has it tacitly changed its mission to be more-or-less implicitly C++-centric? LLVM is a mostly corporate-sponsored open source project. There isn't really a global LLVM roadmap, and developers usually work on things that help their employers. There has rarely been explicit opposition to features that help other languages, but at the same time it is very difficult to make a large nontrivial change to LLVM at this point. Someone who is not already an active LLVM developer might be overwhelmed and give up on upstreaming their changes. IMO the most successful use of LLVM for a sufficiently non-C++ language has been Azul's work on last-tier JIT compilation using LLVM: https://llvm.org/devmtg/2017-10/#talk12 https://llvm.org/devmtg/2017-10/#talk12 > And specifically, what sway does Rust hold on the LLVM project and its goals? As far as I can tell (and this may be a bit out-of-date), basically none.
masklinn 7y ago
> Back when Rust was announced, it was much more similar to Go than it is now, even having a similar runtime for concurrency. Go did a better job than Rust of delivering this paradigm, largely because the Go implementors weren't relying on commodity technologies like LLVM and libuv. Or rather because the community decided to move away from this paradigm and towards a much more C-style view of systems programming.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

throwaway894345 7y ago

I've heard this about LLVM a lot in the past; does LLVM recognize its C++-centricity as a problem in delivering on its mission of being a multilingual target platform, or has it tacitly changed its mission to be more-or-less implicitly C++-centric? And specifically, what sway does Rust hold on the LLVM project and its goals?

swsieber 7y ago
I would say it's mostly incidental - c++ like things are its biggest use case and get the most feedback.
cwzwarich 7y ago
> does LLVM recognize its C++-centricity as a problem in delivering on its mission of being a multilingual target platform, or has it tacitly changed its mission to be more-or-less implicitly C++-centric? LLVM is a mostly corporate-sponsored open source project. There isn't really a global LLVM roadmap, and developers usually work on things that help their employers. There has rarely been explicit opposition to features that help other languages, but at the same time it is very difficult to make a large nontrivial change to LLVM at this point. Someone who is not already an active LLVM developer might be overwhelmed and give up on upstreaming their changes. IMO the most successful use of LLVM for a sufficiently non-C++ language has been Azul's work on last-tier JIT compilation using LLVM: https://llvm.org/devmtg/2017-10/#talk12 https://llvm.org/devmtg/2017-10/#talk12 > And specifically, what sway does Rust hold on the LLVM project and its goals? As far as I can tell (and this may be a bit out-of-date), basically none.

masklinn 7y ago

> Back when Rust was announced, it was much more similar to Go than it is now, even having a similar runtime for concurrency. Go did a better job than Rust of delivering this paradigm, largely because the Go implementors weren't relying on commodity technologies like LLVM and libuv. Or rather because the community decided to move away from this paradigm and towards a much more C-style view of systems programming.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]