3 ms·
> I’m a proponent of that. Just rewriting old java or python monsters in an efficient language like Rust would easily give us an order of magnitude better effic
by baybal2 5y ago
> I’m a proponent of that. Just rewriting old java or python monsters in an efficient language like Rust would easily give us an order of magnitude better efficiency.
Do not rewrite software in Rust, because Rust is not an efficient language. It's a memory, and RAM hog, and it's unstable, with major breakers every release. Switching to Rust is not a thing for a profit seeking enterprise.
In practice, it's an n-fold downgrade from good C on performance.
- qualudeheart 5y agoIf you can so that in C all the better. I know there exists a formally verified secure C compiler. Ideally you would have a similar compiler which guarantees low energy uses. In my experience Rust already does a great job there but I’m happy to behold whatever evidence exists for C being more energy efficient.
- skohan 5y ago> with major breakers every release Source? I was under the impression that Rust took an aggressive approach to back compat. And I'm also not a proponent of rewriting in Rust for it's own sake, but the other commenter was suggesting it in place of Python, which would probably be a huge net gain in efficiency.
- yjftsjthsd-h 5y agoPossibly with the caveat that the unstable versions of rust are going to be more prone to breakage (I mean, obviously, but it is a way to hit issues). It was my impression that most people didn't need unstable anymore, though.