3 ms·
>You can see some skepticism of the premise elsewhere in this thread, even. Heh, well. The downvotes are clearly trying to tell me something, though I'm not su
by jolux 6y ago
>You can see some skepticism of the premise elsewhere in this thread, even.
Heh, well. The downvotes are clearly trying to tell me something, though I'm not sure what. I can guess. I assumed that this was something widely agreed upon at this point but clearly I assumed incorrectly.
I think ATS is in that category too but it was removed from the benchmarks game at some point. It's also vastly more esoteric and complicated than Rust is from my limited knowledge. Perhaps someday Zig will get there as well. I wouldn't have expected that this niche would ever see so much exploration, as C and C++ were the only game in town for so long.
- steveklabnik 6y agoYeah I mean, to be clear I believe you are right and am pretty surprised you were downvoted. It happens I guess.
- ghostwriter 6y ago> It's also vastly more esoteric and complicated than Rust is from my limited knowledge. I doubt that ATS is more complicated than Rust at on-par feature comparison. It gets more complex only when you reach for a larger set of static constraints you can express in ATS, that are unavailable in Rust: things like dependent types and complete formal proofs that you don't need a separate language for. It feels esoteric only because those features in such low level languages are extremely rare. Also, consider the amount of effort you need to spend on learning a new toolchain (Rust), whereas ATS seems like a plugin/extra compilation step on top of your regular and familiar C toolchain.
- jolux 6y agoMy impression was that its facilities for type- and memory-safe pointer usage were fairly sophisticated and unlike anything in more popular languages, which is what I was going off of. I must admit I haven't written any ATS, just done a cursory skim of the documentation and watched a Strange Loop talk a few years back.