3 ms·
We really need a simpler language that has the same ownership model. I like Nim because I can compile it without threading support, and for RISC-V (albeit 64-bi
by fwsgonzo 6y ago
We really need a simpler language that has the same ownership model. I like Nim because I can compile it without threading support, and for RISC-V (albeit 64-bit, wish it had 32-bit support too..).
Overall, I like it, but I could not justify using it in an enterprise setting without knowing that the direction of the language is going towards what is now the established minimum safety, which is borrow checking and no UB.
- gameswithgo 6y agoif you have borrow checking, you are going to inherit a lot of complexity in order to deal with the limitations it imposes. you could be simpler than rust, for sure, but bot as simple as say C or Go. Zig might be a language you are interested in. Simple like C with sensible ways of dealing with UB and bounds checking, as well as options instead of Nulls.
- planetis 6y agoZig is interesting but still very immature. Its memory model is manual management thus has no advantages over rust or nim. So it's marketed as better C (not any more than that).
- pizza234 6y ago> We really need a simpler language that has the same ownership model Can you mention which part of the Rust language you found complicated (in real world), excluding the ownership/memory management area (which includes: bck, lifetimes, smart pointers, traits related to synchronization)? I read a lot of comments about Rust's complexity, and while nobody doubts the complexity of the ownership/memory management, there's a very common lack of details when it comes to the rest of the language.
- pjmlp 6y agoThe rest of the language is just fine if you are used to the ML language family, maybe that is the issue for those coming from more mainstream languages.