3 ms·

>Not having a GC and not freeing memory by hand is one of the features that makes Rust special. What would be the point of this? To put it bluntly: to make wri

by vegai_ 5y ago

>Not having a GC and not freeing memory by hand is one of the features that makes Rust special. What would be the point of this? To put it bluntly: to make writing Rust fast and fun. If you think it's fast and fun right now, you're either very good at it or somehow delusional.

lewantmontreal 5y ago
Is GC for Rust possible in the future? I’d love that if it means simpler compiler error messages for e.g. closures.
alice-i-cecile 5y ago
Honestly, if you're working within a well-architected framework, writing Rust is genuinely a joy (except perhaps async). The painful challenges of "how do I design something that plays nice with the borrow checker" can be solved once, and then you just stick to convention and enjoy the expressiveness of the trait system.
duped 5y ago
What would garbage collection buy you in a language like Rust?
DarkCrusader2 5y ago
Agree with this. I wrote some non-trivial amount of code in Rust just to give is a proper try. After countless hours spent in understanding borrow checker, life times and waiting for compilation to finish, I still have to constantly fight borrow checker. When working with Rust, I am not "making thing X" but instead "writing Rust which happens to be X". The code is littered with either `unwrap` of `?` which is just exception management done manually with hardly any benefit. On systems programming front, last time I checked there were two options to make system calls (apart from writing inline assembly), the `libc` or the `nix` crate. `libc` is just a wrapper so exposes `unsafe` C like API which doesn't make for idiomatic Rust code. `nix` was incomplete on lots of front, not sure if things have changed now since it has been a while I tried Rust. So much for a systems programming language.
- timeon 5y ago
  What is wrong with `?`? I consider Option<T> as a plus. Unwrap is hack but '?' is good error handling. Better then littered code with unnecessary ifs (which you need to use even in GC languages).

by vegai_ 5y ago

lewantmontreal 5y ago

Is GC for Rust possible in the future? I’d love that if it means simpler compiler error messages for e.g. closures.

alice-i-cecile 5y ago

Honestly, if you're working within a well-architected framework, writing Rust is genuinely a joy (except perhaps async). The painful challenges of "how do I design something that plays nice with the borrow checker" can be solved once, and then you just stick to convention and enjoy the expressiveness of the trait system.

duped 5y ago

What would garbage collection buy you in a language like Rust?

DarkCrusader2 5y ago

Agree with this. I wrote some non-trivial amount of code in Rust just to give is a proper try. After countless hours spent in understanding borrow checker, life times and waiting for compilation to finish, I still have to constantly fight borrow checker. When working with Rust, I am not "making thing X" but instead "writing Rust which happens to be X". The code is littered with either `unwrap` of `?` which is just exception management done manually with hardly any benefit. On systems programming front, last time I checked there were two options to make system calls (apart from writing inline assembly), the `libc` or the `nix` crate. `libc` is just a wrapper so exposes `unsafe` C like API which doesn't make for idiomatic Rust code. `nix` was incomplete on lots of front, not sure if things have changed now since it has been a while I tried Rust. So much for a systems programming language.

timeon 5y ago
What is wrong with `?`? I consider Option<T> as a plus. Unwrap is hack but '?' is good error handling. Better then littered code with unnecessary ifs (which you need to use even in GC languages).