5 ms·

I'm getting an increasingly bad taste from rust. In spite of the hype 9 out of 10 rust programs I download end up with a panic in my first 10 minutes of using t

by nullc 6y ago

I'm getting an increasingly bad taste from rust. In spite of the hype 9 out of 10 rust programs I download end up with a panic in my first 10 minutes of using them. Javascript is a memory safe language yet there is plenty of broken code written it it. Memory safety is a critical step forward but its wasted if it's paired with an ecosystem that thinks memory safety means that software doesn't need to be correct or is so fixated on reimplementing things for "memory safety" that understanding the problem domain and actually making things that work falls by the wayside.

Recursing 6y ago
> 9 out of 10 rust programs I download end up with a panic in my first 10 minutes of using them. Do you have some examples? Firefox, ripgrep and fd are the only programs I use that I know are written in rust (I know only a small part of Firefox is in Rust), and they work fine for me
- stag 6y ago
  Also bat, the alternative to cat, is written in rust, works fine for me.
- gameswithgo 6y ago
  Sounds like a completely made up story really. Where would he find ~20 odd rust programs to download and try to report such a stat?
nestorD 6y ago
Note that the use of the word "panic" in Rust can be a bit misleading. It is not equivalent to a segfault in C/C++ but rather to a volontarily uncaught exception, killing the application.
- nullc 6y ago
  It's that kind of thinking that likely contributes to the low software quality. The software failed and did so in a user uninformative way. Except in things like network facing software or whatnot --where a segfault might also be an RCE--, a panic is not superior to a segfault. A panic can even still be a vulnerability: DOS attacks are attacks too. That the failure isn't one that could have resulted in an RCE is only a small consolation in cases where the software doesn't have remote exposure.
  - XMPPwocky 6y ago
    There's also just not that much Rust software out there, and 80% of everything is crap. If you compare the best, say, C tool to do something against the best Rust tool, the odds that the Rust tool will be lower-quality are higher - the Rust tool is probably the only Rust tool written to do that, while the C tool is probably the best C tool that's survived over the years.
    - bluejekyll 6y ago
      As someone who has worked with a lot of Rust libraries and applications, your estimate on quality is completely made up hyperbole with the clear intention of maligning Rust. I have experienced far more success in using Rust and its library ecosystem than I ever have in other languages. Yes there are bugs in somethings, yes there are others that don’t follow best practices, but throwing out a number of “80%” completely dismisses how solid and capable so many pieces of Rust software are.
      - XMPPwocky 6y ago
        Woah, woah, hold on. I'm just referencing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law here. As somebody who has written a lot of cruddy, unmaintained Rust library bindings because I needed them for a project, I'm speaking, in no small part, about my own work here. Sorry if that wasn't clear. 90% of everything is crap- C or Rust- because there are a whole lot more low-effort libraries and tools than high-quality, maintained, documented ones. There's less Rust code, so the low-effort tools are more visible. Rust is my favorite programming language, and I use it for everything where a REPL isn't critical (there Python still wins) unless other factors prevent the use of Rust, like the need to work with others or run on weird embedded architectures. I've been writing Rust since before 1.0, was at the 1.0 launch party in SF, and even contributed the (hilariously small, but) std::iter::once API. So- my intention was "clearly" to malign Rust? Well, actually, it was to defend it. Again, sorry if that wasn't clear, but ...assume good faith next time! Please!
        6y ago
leotaku 6y ago
Interestingly, I have had the polar opposite experience. When using apps written in scripting languages like Python, I almost expect them to crash at some point because I've seen it happen so often. On the other hand, Rust applications, much like Go, Haskell or C++ applications, in my experience, generally do what they are told without any hiccups. Care to name some of the "9 out of 10" programs that crashed for you?
imtringued 6y ago
Are you sure this isn't just confirmation bias? When a program "panics" then its easy to conclude that it must be a Rust program but if it doesn't then aren't you simply forgetting to count all the working Rust programs?
historyremade 6y ago
Greg, I agree with you on this...
gameswithgo 6y ago
>Javascript is a memory safe language yet there is plenty of broken code written it it. Rust has a lot of safety features javascript doesn't, like lack of null, and data race protection..and types. But the biggest difference is Rust gets you memory safety AND C/C++ performance.
Ar-Curunir 6y ago
Care to back up your claim with some evidence?

by nullc 6y ago

Recursing 6y ago

> 9 out of 10 rust programs I download end up with a panic in my first 10 minutes of using them. Do you have some examples? Firefox, ripgrep and fd are the only programs I use that I know are written in rust (I know only a small part of Firefox is in Rust), and they work fine for me

stag 6y ago
Also bat, the alternative to cat, is written in rust, works fine for me.
gameswithgo 6y ago
Sounds like a completely made up story really. Where would he find ~20 odd rust programs to download and try to report such a stat?

nestorD 6y ago

Note that the use of the word "panic" in Rust can be a bit misleading. It is not equivalent to a segfault in C/C++ but rather to a volontarily uncaught exception, killing the application.

nullc 6y ago
It's that kind of thinking that likely contributes to the low software quality. The software failed and did so in a user uninformative way. Except in things like network facing software or whatnot --where a segfault might also be an RCE--, a panic is not superior to a segfault. A panic can even still be a vulnerability: DOS attacks are attacks too. That the failure isn't one that could have resulted in an RCE is only a small consolation in cases where the software doesn't have remote exposure.
- XMPPwocky 6y ago
  There's also just not that much Rust software out there, and 80% of everything is crap. If you compare the best, say, C tool to do something against the best Rust tool, the odds that the Rust tool will be lower-quality are higher - the Rust tool is probably the only Rust tool written to do that, while the C tool is probably the best C tool that's survived over the years.
  - bluejekyll 6y ago
    As someone who has worked with a lot of Rust libraries and applications, your estimate on quality is completely made up hyperbole with the clear intention of maligning Rust. I have experienced far more success in using Rust and its library ecosystem than I ever have in other languages. Yes there are bugs in somethings, yes there are others that don’t follow best practices, but throwing out a number of “80%” completely dismisses how solid and capable so many pieces of Rust software are.
    - XMPPwocky 6y ago
      Woah, woah, hold on. I'm just referencing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law here. As somebody who has written a lot of cruddy, unmaintained Rust library bindings because I needed them for a project, I'm speaking, in no small part, about my own work here. Sorry if that wasn't clear. 90% of everything is crap- C or Rust- because there are a whole lot more low-effort libraries and tools than high-quality, maintained, documented ones. There's less Rust code, so the low-effort tools are more visible. Rust is my favorite programming language, and I use it for everything where a REPL isn't critical (there Python still wins) unless other factors prevent the use of Rust, like the need to work with others or run on weird embedded architectures. I've been writing Rust since before 1.0, was at the 1.0 launch party in SF, and even contributed the (hilariously small, but) std::iter::once API. So- my intention was "clearly" to malign Rust? Well, actually, it was to defend it. Again, sorry if that wasn't clear, but ...assume good faith next time! Please!
      - 6y ago

leotaku 6y ago

Interestingly, I have had the polar opposite experience. When using apps written in scripting languages like Python, I almost expect them to crash at some point because I've seen it happen so often. On the other hand, Rust applications, much like Go, Haskell or C++ applications, in my experience, generally do what they are told without any hiccups. Care to name some of the "9 out of 10" programs that crashed for you?

imtringued 6y ago

Are you sure this isn't just confirmation bias? When a program "panics" then its easy to conclude that it must be a Rust program but if it doesn't then aren't you simply forgetting to count all the working Rust programs?

historyremade 6y ago

Greg, I agree with you on this...

gameswithgo 6y ago

>Javascript is a memory safe language yet there is plenty of broken code written it it. Rust has a lot of safety features javascript doesn't, like lack of null, and data race protection..and types. But the biggest difference is Rust gets you memory safety AND C/C++ performance.

Ar-Curunir 6y ago

Care to back up your claim with some evidence?