5 ms·

Strongly disagree. It will only benefit the language to have more than one quality implementation. C++ has benefited hugely by the competition between g++ and

by not2b 6y ago

Strongly disagree. It will only benefit the language to have more than one quality implementation. C++ has benefited hugely by the competition between g++ and clang; both compilers have gotten much, much better. To be fair, it will take a while before the GCC Rust front end is competitive, but for some purposes it doesn't have to be, like bootstrapping. If "progress" means "rapidly add more and more new features in each release", multiple implementations will slow things down. But that problem can be addressed with editions: at some point, if the project is a success, the gcc front end will be a feature-complete version of some Rust edition, plus enough extra features to build an older version of the Rust compiler. At that point, you have a better solution to the bootstrapping problem (how to get a Rust compiler when you only have a C compiler and you want to build everything from source and not trust some binary you download from somewhere).

jcelerier 6y ago
> C++ has benefited hugely by the competition between g++ and clang; both compilers have gotten much, much better. yet rust has a single implementation and by some metrics does better than both.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Compilation speed isn't one of them though.
turminal 6y ago
>If "progress" means "rapidly add more and more new features in each release", multiple implementations will slow things down This has to happen at some point anyway otherwise we'll just get another C++. And I don't think Rust would benefit from that. New languages are designed to fix problems with the old ones, not to replicate them after all. I just hope the designers will choose that point wisely.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  In some extent, given the use of macros and Haskell like libraries, it is already another C++. Besides, if Rust doesn't become another C++, it won't fulfil the industry needs that C++ caters for, thus while it might become a success in some domain, it won't replace C++ in the OS and GPGPU SDKs.
  - ncmncm 6y ago
    Rust will not in any case replace C++, in any core application area. Rust might move in alongside C++, in some, in time. Or, Rust could still very possibly fizzle. That would be the normal course of events for a new language, barring a miracle as was dispensed to Javascript, Java, C++, and vanishingly few others. Will Dart survive and thrive? Kotlin? Scala? Clojure? Go? All doubtful, based on prior experience. Having a lot of code and a lot of users does not seem to suffice. Many other languages had those, and faded. Ada even had $billions in backing, and faded. What we can say confidently about Rust's future is that it is not certain to fade. The miracle has come in less deserving cases.
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      > Ada even had $billions in backing, and faded. Yet, NVidia picked it up over Rust, go figure.
- varajelle 6y ago
  > otherwise we'll just get another C++. I don't see why this is a bad thing. I'm a C++ developer, and I like C++. (I like rust as well)
JoshTriplett 6y ago
> It will only benefit the language to have more than one quality implementation. As long as "quality implementation" means "implements the entire Rust language and not a subset". Because otherwise, people will start getting requests to avoid using features that the non-standard Rust toolchain doesn't support.

by not2b 6y ago

jcelerier 6y ago

> C++ has benefited hugely by the competition between g++ and clang; both compilers have gotten much, much better. yet rust has a single implementation and by some metrics does better than both.

pjmlp 6y ago
Compilation speed isn't one of them though.

turminal 6y ago

>If "progress" means "rapidly add more and more new features in each release", multiple implementations will slow things down This has to happen at some point anyway otherwise we'll just get another C++. And I don't think Rust would benefit from that. New languages are designed to fix problems with the old ones, not to replicate them after all. I just hope the designers will choose that point wisely.

pjmlp 6y ago
In some extent, given the use of macros and Haskell like libraries, it is already another C++. Besides, if Rust doesn't become another C++, it won't fulfil the industry needs that C++ caters for, thus while it might become a success in some domain, it won't replace C++ in the OS and GPGPU SDKs.
- ncmncm 6y ago
  Rust will not in any case replace C++, in any core application area. Rust might move in alongside C++, in some, in time. Or, Rust could still very possibly fizzle. That would be the normal course of events for a new language, barring a miracle as was dispensed to Javascript, Java, C++, and vanishingly few others. Will Dart survive and thrive? Kotlin? Scala? Clojure? Go? All doubtful, based on prior experience. Having a lot of code and a lot of users does not seem to suffice. Many other languages had those, and faded. Ada even had $billions in backing, and faded. What we can say confidently about Rust's future is that it is not certain to fade. The miracle has come in less deserving cases.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    > Ada even had $billions in backing, and faded. Yet, NVidia picked it up over Rust, go figure.
varajelle 6y ago
> otherwise we'll just get another C++. I don't see why this is a bad thing. I'm a C++ developer, and I like C++. (I like rust as well)

JoshTriplett 6y ago

> It will only benefit the language to have more than one quality implementation. As long as "quality implementation" means "implements the entire Rust language and not a subset". Because otherwise, people will start getting requests to avoid using features that the non-standard Rust toolchain doesn't support.