4 ms·

IMHO it would be good for Rust to become popular niche/specialist language for systems programming. Currently Rust is not as complete or well defined as Ada/SP

IMHO it would be good for Rust to become popular niche/specialist language for systems programming. Currently Rust is not as complete or well defined as Ada/SPARK or MISRA C/C++ combined with commercial analyzers (Astree for example). At the same time Rust is "too sound and rigorous" for mainstream programmers. Rust advocates are in the losing battle of of forcing mainstream to adopt "it does not compile unless computer says its ready" style. Reliability and soundness comes with a cost. Most software is not worth of the cost. When you adopt subscription model, fixing bugs is where the money is. If your app works flawlessly without updates, Apple removes it after few years.

WastingMyTime89 4y ago
I for one as someone who programmed professionally in both Ocaml and Ada still don’t see where Rust is supposed to fit. If I was doing something high level, I would probably use Ocaml which has nicer features. If I wanted to write safe code, Ada offers a better experience with the availability of SPARK for parts I would probably end up wanting to prove. If I just want to write concurrent code with the certainty I could find someone to maintain it, Go seems the way to go. Rust seems to want to be a replacement for Ada but seems to actually attract programmers used to high level language chasing the hype. What’s the story with Rust and verification nowadays?
- qznc 4y ago
  I think Rust has a good chance to take away market share from Ada and Ocaml. Its eco system (packages, documentation) is more comprehensive already thanks to its broader appeal and being in fashion. I don’t see why stronger verification should not appear at some point. Progress and need is there.
- School-Cotton 4y ago
  Rust is supposed to be a better C++, and resoundingly succeeds at that goal.
  - pjmlp 4y ago
    It partially succeeds at that, because while it has a much better story in being safe by default, there are plenty of C++ use cases where Rust still hasn't a story to sell. HPC, HFT, GPGPU, LLVM/GCC infrastructure, GUI, console SDKs, drivers SDKs, security certification ,....
    - School-Cotton 4y ago
      Ok, fair, you’re right. Rust is successful in a rather large subset of C++ niche, but not yet the whole thing!
    - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
      imo, Julia is a better fit than rust or C++ for hpc/gpgpu
      - pjmlp 4y ago
        It might someday, still lots of room to improvement regarding current workloads. I not not seeing Fermilab or CERN doing real time beam processing in Julia anytime soon. Or stuff like having graphical shader debugging tools for Julia.
        adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
        Julia already is starting to be used for high energy physics (see https://arxiv.org/pdf/2003.11952.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2003.11952.pdf and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlfAa-LN1SA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlfAa-LN1SA for details). It's definitely not the default yet, but there absolutely is effort to use it for particle accelerators.
- thesuperbigfrog 4y ago
  >> What’s the story with Rust and verification nowadays? It is in progress but likely several years to go before a MVP is released. Ferrocene [1] is the primary effort that I am aware of and that seems to be making progress towards a verified rustc suitable for safety critical work. Ferrous Systems is working with AdaCore and just released the Ferrocene Language Specification [2] to formally document the Rust subset that Ferrocene will use. [1] https://ferrous-systems.com/ferrocene/ https://ferrous-systems.com/ferrocene/ [2] https://ferrous-systems.com/blog/ferrocene-language-specification/ https://ferrous-systems.com/blog/ferrocene-language-specific...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
elcritch 4y ago
Ick, most programmers aren’t going to write MISRA C/C++ either. Even if people claim they do it seems way to easy to just turn off or ignore it. Take the recent reports on the Toyota gas peddle bugs. They’d completely abandoned. Gotta say SPARK does seem to provide much of what it claims. Interesting that NVIDIA seemed to be using it for their secure bits.
- Hirrolot 4y ago
  Quoting one publication about MISRA [1]: "From the data obtained, we can make the following key observations. First, there are 9 out of 72 rules for which violations were observed that perform significantly better (α = 0.05) than a random predictor at locating fault-related lines. The true positive rates for these rules range from 24-100%. Second, we observed a negative correlation between MISRA rule violations and observed faults. In addition, 29 out of 72 rules had a zero true positive rate. Taken together with Adams' observation that all modifications have a non-zero probability of introducing a fault, this makes it possible that adherence to the MISRA standard as a whole would have made the software less reliable." [1] https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:646de5ba-eee8-4ec8-8bbc-2c188e1847ea?collection=research https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:646de5ba...
School-Cotton 4y ago
> Rust advocates are in the losing battle of of forcing mainstream Dunno what you mean. I like Rust. I think it’s by far the best language in its niche, which contains exactly two languages: Rust and C++. If what you’re doing doesn’t fit into that niche, that’s fine! Don’t use Rust. Who is forcing anyone to do anything?

WastingMyTime89 4y ago

I for one as someone who programmed professionally in both Ocaml and Ada still don’t see where Rust is supposed to fit. If I was doing something high level, I would probably use Ocaml which has nicer features. If I wanted to write safe code, Ada offers a better experience with the availability of SPARK for parts I would probably end up wanting to prove. If I just want to write concurrent code with the certainty I could find someone to maintain it, Go seems the way to go. Rust seems to want to be a replacement for Ada but seems to actually attract programmers used to high level language chasing the hype. What’s the story with Rust and verification nowadays?

qznc 4y ago
I think Rust has a good chance to take away market share from Ada and Ocaml. Its eco system (packages, documentation) is more comprehensive already thanks to its broader appeal and being in fashion. I don’t see why stronger verification should not appear at some point. Progress and need is there.
School-Cotton 4y ago
Rust is supposed to be a better C++, and resoundingly succeeds at that goal.
- pjmlp 4y ago
  It partially succeeds at that, because while it has a much better story in being safe by default, there are plenty of C++ use cases where Rust still hasn't a story to sell. HPC, HFT, GPGPU, LLVM/GCC infrastructure, GUI, console SDKs, drivers SDKs, security certification ,....
  - School-Cotton 4y ago
    Ok, fair, you’re right. Rust is successful in a rather large subset of C++ niche, but not yet the whole thing!
  - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
    imo, Julia is a better fit than rust or C++ for hpc/gpgpu
    - pjmlp 4y ago
      It might someday, still lots of room to improvement regarding current workloads. I not not seeing Fermilab or CERN doing real time beam processing in Julia anytime soon. Or stuff like having graphical shader debugging tools for Julia.
      - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
        Julia already is starting to be used for high energy physics (see https://arxiv.org/pdf/2003.11952.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2003.11952.pdf and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlfAa-LN1SA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlfAa-LN1SA for details). It's definitely not the default yet, but there absolutely is effort to use it for particle accelerators.
thesuperbigfrog 4y ago
>> What’s the story with Rust and verification nowadays? It is in progress but likely several years to go before a MVP is released. Ferrocene [1] is the primary effort that I am aware of and that seems to be making progress towards a verified rustc suitable for safety critical work. Ferrous Systems is working with AdaCore and just released the Ferrocene Language Specification [2] to formally document the Rust subset that Ferrocene will use. [1] https://ferrous-systems.com/ferrocene/ https://ferrous-systems.com/ferrocene/ [2] https://ferrous-systems.com/blog/ferrocene-language-specification/ https://ferrous-systems.com/blog/ferrocene-language-specific...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

elcritch 4y ago

Ick, most programmers aren’t going to write MISRA C/C++ either. Even if people claim they do it seems way to easy to just turn off or ignore it. Take the recent reports on the Toyota gas peddle bugs. They’d completely abandoned. Gotta say SPARK does seem to provide much of what it claims. Interesting that NVIDIA seemed to be using it for their secure bits.

Hirrolot 4y ago
Quoting one publication about MISRA [1]: "From the data obtained, we can make the following key observations. First, there are 9 out of 72 rules for which violations were observed that perform significantly better (α = 0.05) than a random predictor at locating fault-related lines. The true positive rates for these rules range from 24-100%. Second, we observed a negative correlation between MISRA rule violations and observed faults. In addition, 29 out of 72 rules had a zero true positive rate. Taken together with Adams' observation that all modifications have a non-zero probability of introducing a fault, this makes it possible that adherence to the MISRA standard as a whole would have made the software less reliable." [1] https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:646de5ba-eee8-4ec8-8bbc-2c188e1847ea?collection=research https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:646de5ba...

School-Cotton 4y ago

> Rust advocates are in the losing battle of of forcing mainstream Dunno what you mean. I like Rust. I think it’s by far the best language in its niche, which contains exactly two languages: Rust and C++. If what you’re doing doesn’t fit into that niche, that’s fine! Don’t use Rust. Who is forcing anyone to do anything?