5 ms·

In case you hadn’t read the article making the case for this: https://shnatsel.medium.com/the-simpler-alternative-to-gcc-rs-90da2b3685d3 https://shnatsel.medium

In case you hadn’t read the article making the case for this: https://shnatsel.medium.com/the-simpler-alternative-to-gcc-rs-90da2b3685d3 https://shnatsel.medium.com/the-simpler-alternative-to-gcc-r... I thought it was pretty interesting, though based on the reddit comments (https://reddit.com/r/rust/comments/noby1t/the_simpler_alternative_to_gccrs/ https://reddit.com/r/rust/comments/noby1t/the_simpler_altern...) the main concern seems to be if a second Rust is implemented without a spec, it could lead to subtle incompatibilities?

steveklabnik 5y ago
It is also very antagonistic. It's not an evenhanded exploration of the tradeoffs of two approaches, it's pretty much just talking trash. Disappointing.
- roblabla 5y ago
  I disagree that it's "just talking trash". Sure, I agree the tone of the article is overly harsh on the gcc-rs project, but it does raise some solid points that, for the stated goals of the project, the approach appear suboptimal. Every time gcc-rs comes up, the discussion always devolves to a "but there's rustc_codegen_gcc, why bother rewriting the language in C++", and I have yet to see a compelling argument why GCC-RS is indeed a superior solution, despite the many downsides. I think the answer is that it isn't necessarily a better solution, but the people with the necessary knowledge to make a gcc frontend or backend happen tend to be more familiar with C++, and so GCC-rs is actually the path of least resistance?
  - steveklabnik 5y ago
    As I said below, one example of a significant advantage is not needing any sort of Rust compiler. It’s not one to me but it is to some. I am not saying that the project is above criticism, or that there are no downsides to its approach, but this article isn’t interested in dispassionate engineering analysis.
- cbmuser 5y ago
  Yep, the author was very clear from the beginning that he didn't like the idea of gcc-rs and wasn't really willing to compare both approaches on the same level. I personally think that's a good thing that multiple approaches to the problem exist and in the end, the better one will hopefully be adopted by the community.
  - wtetzner 5y ago
    > in the end, the better one will hopefully be adopted by the community. Or both. I mean, is there anything wrong with having multiple implementations of a language? They may each be better for different reasons.
otabdeveloper4 5y ago
The Rust people don't believe in specs. (I guess the reasoning is that if you ignore the problem is just goes away?) Anyways, their loss, not mine. Until Rust gets a real standard it will forever be a toy language. For many (most?) people in the systems programming sphere (including me) the lack of a standard is the #1 impediment to using Rust.
- raphlinus 5y ago
  The Rust people firmly believe in specs and are working on one (most of the activity is currently in Ferrocene). On the other hand, they fully appreciate that writing a good spec is very hard and takes time, while a bad spec can do lots of damage to the ecosystem.
  - otabdeveloper4 5y ago
    The Rust foundation should be the organization heading the standardization efforts, not some shady GmbH. But looking at https://foundation.rust-lang.org/ https://foundation.rust-lang.org/ I see a content-devoid site that holds nothing but passive-aggressive demands for money. That's about as far away from "firmly believing" as possible given the circumstance.
    - raphlinus 5y ago
      The Foundation is a recent development. The efforts by Ferrous to make Rust more suitable for safety-critical work predate the creation of the Foundation by quite some time; there was quite a bit of work done under the "sealed Rust" banner before that was rebranded as Ferrocene. Good specs don't emerge from thin air (though I suspect that many bad specs emerge through spontaneous generation), and the people who work on them deserve to be funded. While I'm not claiming the process the Rust community has is perfect, it is explicitly designed to be sustainable, and I think it's right to be proud of the collaboration between different companies, large and small, and also academia; Ralf Jung's work in particular is foundational and he well earned his recent PhD for it.

steveklabnik 5y ago

It is also very antagonistic. It's not an evenhanded exploration of the tradeoffs of two approaches, it's pretty much just talking trash. Disappointing.

roblabla 5y ago
I disagree that it's "just talking trash". Sure, I agree the tone of the article is overly harsh on the gcc-rs project, but it does raise some solid points that, for the stated goals of the project, the approach appear suboptimal. Every time gcc-rs comes up, the discussion always devolves to a "but there's rustc_codegen_gcc, why bother rewriting the language in C++", and I have yet to see a compelling argument why GCC-RS is indeed a superior solution, despite the many downsides. I think the answer is that it isn't necessarily a better solution, but the people with the necessary knowledge to make a gcc frontend or backend happen tend to be more familiar with C++, and so GCC-rs is actually the path of least resistance?
- steveklabnik 5y ago
  As I said below, one example of a significant advantage is not needing any sort of Rust compiler. It’s not one to me but it is to some. I am not saying that the project is above criticism, or that there are no downsides to its approach, but this article isn’t interested in dispassionate engineering analysis.
cbmuser 5y ago
Yep, the author was very clear from the beginning that he didn't like the idea of gcc-rs and wasn't really willing to compare both approaches on the same level. I personally think that's a good thing that multiple approaches to the problem exist and in the end, the better one will hopefully be adopted by the community.
- wtetzner 5y ago
  > in the end, the better one will hopefully be adopted by the community. Or both. I mean, is there anything wrong with having multiple implementations of a language? They may each be better for different reasons.

otabdeveloper4 5y ago

The Rust people don't believe in specs. (I guess the reasoning is that if you ignore the problem is just goes away?) Anyways, their loss, not mine. Until Rust gets a real standard it will forever be a toy language. For many (most?) people in the systems programming sphere (including me) the lack of a standard is the #1 impediment to using Rust.

raphlinus 5y ago
The Rust people firmly believe in specs and are working on one (most of the activity is currently in Ferrocene). On the other hand, they fully appreciate that writing a good spec is very hard and takes time, while a bad spec can do lots of damage to the ecosystem.
- otabdeveloper4 5y ago
  The Rust foundation should be the organization heading the standardization efforts, not some shady GmbH. But looking at https://foundation.rust-lang.org/ https://foundation.rust-lang.org/ I see a content-devoid site that holds nothing but passive-aggressive demands for money. That's about as far away from "firmly believing" as possible given the circumstance.
  - raphlinus 5y ago
    The Foundation is a recent development. The efforts by Ferrous to make Rust more suitable for safety-critical work predate the creation of the Foundation by quite some time; there was quite a bit of work done under the "sealed Rust" banner before that was rebranded as Ferrocene. Good specs don't emerge from thin air (though I suspect that many bad specs emerge through spontaneous generation), and the people who work on them deserve to be funded. While I'm not claiming the process the Rust community has is perfect, it is explicitly designed to be sustainable, and I think it's right to be proud of the collaboration between different companies, large and small, and also academia; Ralf Jung's work in particular is foundational and he well earned his recent PhD for it.