4 ms·

The premise that Rust does not intend to replace C and C++ is not true. Rust is designed to mesh with existing C and C++ code bases well, which is why many larg

The premise that Rust does not intend to replace C and C++ is not true. Rust is designed to mesh with existing C and C++ code bases well, which is why many large projects support writing code in Rust (Chrome, Firefox, Linux, Windows, etc.). Your claim that you need to learn all low level details first is also not true. There are ~20 million programmers in the world, and about ~16 million of those are Javascript programmers. Many of them don't know and don't need to know the difference between the stack and the heap. Many of them regularly optimize their Javascript hotspots by re-writing them in Rust and compiling it to webassembly. And almost all of them benefit from Javascript libraries that do this internally. Rust is for many of them the ramp up into lower-level systems programming, and this is one of the reasons the Rust project has so many contributors. Rust enables Javascript programmers to actually hack on the Rust compiler, Firefox, etc. This is something that C and C++ never achieved, and one of the main reasons for the Linux kernel to want to use Rust (they want to attract more junior developers to increase the developer base and make the project more accessible). Your tone that the large majority of programmers in the world are somehow "doing programming wrong" by learning higher-level and safe languages first, and delving into low-level details as they need to, sounds very elitist and I personally find it disgusting.

Jensson 5y ago
> The premise that Rust does not intend to replace C and C++ is not true. My point was that Rust wont replace C and C++ as long as the Rust community is as it is now. And from your comments it seems like Rust isn't intended to replace C or C++, but act as a low level language for people who don't know how to write low level code, like javascript programmers. > Your tone that the large majority of programmers in the world are somehow "doing programming wrong" by learning higher-level and safe languages first, and delving into low-level details as they need to, sounds very elitist and I personally find it disgusting. I didn't say that everyone has to learn rust by learning how to write the low level parts. I am saying that if someone wants to learn how to write low level parts of rust rather than the safe parts because they are used to writing performance critical bits of code in C or C++ then you shouldn't discourage them from doing that. Please don't put words in my mouth.
- sanderjd 5y ago
  It isn't "don't know how to write low level code" in my view, it is more "don't think it is productive to reimplementat basic data structures over and over again". All the stuff you're saying you can't write in idiomatic rust is stuff that has already been written and battle tested in libraries, which are perfectly idiomatic to use. I don't need to write my own linked list and binary tree implementations over and over again. I did that in school, I can go check the code in the libraries I'm using to confirm it makes sense to me, and then just use the library and go about doing what I'm actually trying to do.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    > All the stuff you're saying you can't write in idiomatic rust is stuff that has already been written and battle tested in libraries It is fine for you to not be able to think of any scenarios where the battle tested standard libraries wouldn't be sufficient. But as someone who wrote low level libraries running in production at Google that doesn't apply to me, for me knowing what it would take to eek out performance in Rust compared to C++ is absolutely necessary and given how hostile people are my guess is that the Rust wouldn't look pretty so there is no reason for me to even try to pick up Rust. And you can't say that I am not your intended user, if you chase away people like me from the rust ecosystem then there is no way that Rust can replace C++ in any reasonable timeframe. What I'd like to see is a lot of examples and such showing how to write very complex things using unsafe rust. Because without that there is no way rust can compete, there are already plenty of people who know how to write highly performant code using unsafe C++.
    - follower 5y ago
      I just saw this and thought of you, "Learn Rust the Dangerous Way": http://cliffle.com/p/dangerust/ http://cliffle.com/p/dangerust/ "LRtDW is a series of articles putting Rust features in context for low-level C programmers [...] the sort of people who work on firmware, game engines, OS kernels, and the like. Basically, people like me." Also, it seems like the author probably also wrote some low level libraries at Google... :)
    - 5y ago

Jensson 5y ago

> The premise that Rust does not intend to replace C and C++ is not true. My point was that Rust wont replace C and C++ as long as the Rust community is as it is now. And from your comments it seems like Rust isn't intended to replace C or C++, but act as a low level language for people who don't know how to write low level code, like javascript programmers. > Your tone that the large majority of programmers in the world are somehow "doing programming wrong" by learning higher-level and safe languages first, and delving into low-level details as they need to, sounds very elitist and I personally find it disgusting. I didn't say that everyone has to learn rust by learning how to write the low level parts. I am saying that if someone wants to learn how to write low level parts of rust rather than the safe parts because they are used to writing performance critical bits of code in C or C++ then you shouldn't discourage them from doing that. Please don't put words in my mouth.

sanderjd 5y ago
It isn't "don't know how to write low level code" in my view, it is more "don't think it is productive to reimplementat basic data structures over and over again". All the stuff you're saying you can't write in idiomatic rust is stuff that has already been written and battle tested in libraries, which are perfectly idiomatic to use. I don't need to write my own linked list and binary tree implementations over and over again. I did that in school, I can go check the code in the libraries I'm using to confirm it makes sense to me, and then just use the library and go about doing what I'm actually trying to do.
- Jensson 5y ago
  > All the stuff you're saying you can't write in idiomatic rust is stuff that has already been written and battle tested in libraries It is fine for you to not be able to think of any scenarios where the battle tested standard libraries wouldn't be sufficient. But as someone who wrote low level libraries running in production at Google that doesn't apply to me, for me knowing what it would take to eek out performance in Rust compared to C++ is absolutely necessary and given how hostile people are my guess is that the Rust wouldn't look pretty so there is no reason for me to even try to pick up Rust. And you can't say that I am not your intended user, if you chase away people like me from the rust ecosystem then there is no way that Rust can replace C++ in any reasonable timeframe. What I'd like to see is a lot of examples and such showing how to write very complex things using unsafe rust. Because without that there is no way rust can compete, there are already plenty of people who know how to write highly performant code using unsafe C++.
  - follower 5y ago
    I just saw this and thought of you, "Learn Rust the Dangerous Way": http://cliffle.com/p/dangerust/ http://cliffle.com/p/dangerust/ "LRtDW is a series of articles putting Rust features in context for low-level C programmers [...] the sort of people who work on firmware, game engines, OS kernels, and the like. Basically, people like me." Also, it seems like the author probably also wrote some low level libraries at Google... :)
  - 5y ago