4 ms·
A few things come to mind. Rust has the potential to be fast... VERY fast. It also can be very safe. Pretty much everything in Rust utilizes the Result type (an
by nobleach 5y ago
A few things come to mind. Rust has the potential to be fast... VERY fast. It also can be very safe. Pretty much everything in Rust utilizes the Result type (an Either Monad that causes Errors/Exceptions to become first-class citizens). It compiles to a single binary. Many of the packages in the ecosystem are very high-quality (Serde for example).
Even still, this doesn't mean anyone should drop what they're doing and migrate all their code to Rust! If you're a Ruby dev (especially if you do Rails) and you're making a living churning out apps with your good old friends like Devise, RSpec, etc. Rust is probably not the thing that'll really wow you. It _can_ do web, and do it REALLY well. But the experience is very different. (Actix/Rocket)
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- joelbluminator 5y agoSo Rust wants to be the new C? Like if someone was writing a new OS or code for an autonomous vehicle today is Rust a likely candidate?
- mping 5y agoRust wants to be the new C without C warts, using the compiler to ensure memory safety (up to a point), promoting immutability and having generics baked in. I'm not a C programmer, but I think Rust can fit almost everywhere C can fit.
- zdragnar 5y ago> Rust has the potential to be fast... VERY fast I think this should be phrased differently. There is a minor bloom of zero-allocation web frameworks in go and java, and probably a few others, which blow their peers out of the water and are horribly not at all idiomatic usages of the languages. They can be very fast, but the performance cliff for using idiomatic code is very significant. Does idiomatic rust perform VERY fast? Can it be both very safe AND very performant? I think the answer to both of those is yes, but I honestly haven't used it enough to know.