3 ms·

> Many of the Rust "evangelists" thinks/behaves like Rust's guarantees are absolute and leads to absolutely unbreakable software by default Can you point to (h

> Many of the Rust "evangelists" thinks/behaves like Rust's guarantees are absolute and leads to absolutely unbreakable software by default Can you point to (high-profile) evangelists that actually push this view? I think the people you refer to are a loud minority of developers who possibly don't even write professionally in Rust. I've never read or heard this position from experts.

bayindirh 4y ago
While the people I talk with are not high profile evangelists, all of them are using Rust in their professional life for work. Maybe the messaging should be clear, and hype should be better controlled from top to bottom, because I never talked with anyone who doesn't casts stones to C & C++ and badmouths it while saying that Rust is the one, and only, and the last savior we need. BTW, I'm not against Rust, but I don't use LLVM. I'm waiting gccrs to dive into the language.
- pizza234 4y ago
  > because I never talked with anyone who doesn't casts stones to C & C++ and badmouths it while saying that Rust is the one, and only, and the last savior we need. I do definitely cast stones on C/++, especially considering that a C project I've rewritten in Rust uncovered several memory safety issues from the very first run. Another C project I've approached also showed C-specific issues from the very beginning. On the other hand, I don't define Rust and the savior and so on; to be specific, memory safety is a very serious issue, but not the only one, and memory safe languages solve a very serious issue, but not all the issues. Additionally, I think Rust is a niche language; other memory safe languages may be more productive for the majority of the use cases ("webcrap", like a famous software engineer described :)). Now you know one!
- falkaer 4y ago
  I'm curious, why not use LLVM?
  - bayindirh 4y ago
    I'm a big GPL advocate, and publish I everything I can publish under GPLv3. Also, I want the code I publish to be able to be built with openly available tools. In other words, I want my software to be free and can be easily reproduced/built. This is the first aspect. Second aspect is I don't like the behavior of LLVM ecosystem which is trying to subtly EEE gcc toolchain. Lastly, I don't desire to be able to build a project I developed, or cloned to be only can be built with "clang/llvm/20201024+somecompanyClosedGitBuild20210514+bp1" which is available in binary form for a single distribution for a specific architecture. I have experienced SDKs and other software like that, and I don't want to go through again, or put anyone through that hoops.
    - dralley 4y ago
      > Second aspect is I don't like the behavior of LLVM ecosystem which is trying to subtly EEE gcc toolchain. As opposed to GCC, which not-very-subtlety added extensions onto C which hurt portability? GCC really shot themselves in the foot by making their architecture so difficult to use as a library, even from GPL code.
- pjmlp 4y ago
  > I never talked with anyone who doesn't casts stones to C & C++ and badmouths it while saying that Rust is the one, and only, and the last savior we need. So here is one, Ada was already that saviour in 1983, and in every use case where using a GC is an option, there are already plenty of options besides Rust. Also until Rust compilers get fully botstraped, knowing C++ is a requirement to contribute to the compiler's backend.
  - howinteresting 4y ago
    Has Ada ever been the most loved language on the Stack Overflow developer survey for seven years in a row? There are plenty of options besides Rust, but none that have & and &mut which eliminates many classes of bugs in both multithreaded and single-threaded code.
    - pjmlp 4y ago
      Stack Overflow did not exist during the first decade of Ada's existence, nor there was a free beer compiler for it.
  - c-cube 4y ago
    Ada is cool, but as far as I understand it doesn't give you memory safety in the presence of dynamic allocations? Unless you use recent improvements to spark? It's hardly a superset of the safety features rust has.
    - pjmlp 4y ago
      It surely does, RAII exists since Ada 95. https://www.adaic.org/resources/add_content/docs/95style/html/sec_9/9-2-3.html https://www.adaic.org/resources/add_content/docs/95style/htm... You are not supposed to call Ada.Unchecked_Deallocation() directly, rather from Ada's version of "Drop". Then SPARK allows for formal proofs that one actually does the right thing, integrated into the language as of Ada 2012. The cherry on top of the cake is that the language is also getting affine types on top of the already battle tested features in 40 years of production deployment into high integrity systems.
- howinteresting 4y ago
  I mean I'd personally rate the opinion of people who actually use Rust higher than people who don't. Rust isn't a silver bullet but it does shift the balance materially.

bayindirh 4y ago

While the people I talk with are not high profile evangelists, all of them are using Rust in their professional life for work. Maybe the messaging should be clear, and hype should be better controlled from top to bottom, because I never talked with anyone who doesn't casts stones to C & C++ and badmouths it while saying that Rust is the one, and only, and the last savior we need. BTW, I'm not against Rust, but I don't use LLVM. I'm waiting gccrs to dive into the language.

pizza234 4y ago
> because I never talked with anyone who doesn't casts stones to C & C++ and badmouths it while saying that Rust is the one, and only, and the last savior we need. I do definitely cast stones on C/++, especially considering that a C project I've rewritten in Rust uncovered several memory safety issues from the very first run. Another C project I've approached also showed C-specific issues from the very beginning. On the other hand, I don't define Rust and the savior and so on; to be specific, memory safety is a very serious issue, but not the only one, and memory safe languages solve a very serious issue, but not all the issues. Additionally, I think Rust is a niche language; other memory safe languages may be more productive for the majority of the use cases ("webcrap", like a famous software engineer described :)). Now you know one!
falkaer 4y ago
I'm curious, why not use LLVM?
- bayindirh 4y ago
  I'm a big GPL advocate, and publish I everything I can publish under GPLv3. Also, I want the code I publish to be able to be built with openly available tools. In other words, I want my software to be free and can be easily reproduced/built. This is the first aspect. Second aspect is I don't like the behavior of LLVM ecosystem which is trying to subtly EEE gcc toolchain. Lastly, I don't desire to be able to build a project I developed, or cloned to be only can be built with "clang/llvm/20201024+somecompanyClosedGitBuild20210514+bp1" which is available in binary form for a single distribution for a specific architecture. I have experienced SDKs and other software like that, and I don't want to go through again, or put anyone through that hoops.
  - dralley 4y ago
    > Second aspect is I don't like the behavior of LLVM ecosystem which is trying to subtly EEE gcc toolchain. As opposed to GCC, which not-very-subtlety added extensions onto C which hurt portability? GCC really shot themselves in the foot by making their architecture so difficult to use as a library, even from GPL code.
pjmlp 4y ago
> I never talked with anyone who doesn't casts stones to C & C++ and badmouths it while saying that Rust is the one, and only, and the last savior we need. So here is one, Ada was already that saviour in 1983, and in every use case where using a GC is an option, there are already plenty of options besides Rust. Also until Rust compilers get fully botstraped, knowing C++ is a requirement to contribute to the compiler's backend.
- howinteresting 4y ago
  Has Ada ever been the most loved language on the Stack Overflow developer survey for seven years in a row? There are plenty of options besides Rust, but none that have & and &mut which eliminates many classes of bugs in both multithreaded and single-threaded code.
  - pjmlp 4y ago
    Stack Overflow did not exist during the first decade of Ada's existence, nor there was a free beer compiler for it.
- c-cube 4y ago
  Ada is cool, but as far as I understand it doesn't give you memory safety in the presence of dynamic allocations? Unless you use recent improvements to spark? It's hardly a superset of the safety features rust has.
  - pjmlp 4y ago
    It surely does, RAII exists since Ada 95. https://www.adaic.org/resources/add_content/docs/95style/html/sec_9/9-2-3.html https://www.adaic.org/resources/add_content/docs/95style/htm... You are not supposed to call Ada.Unchecked_Deallocation() directly, rather from Ada's version of "Drop". Then SPARK allows for formal proofs that one actually does the right thing, integrated into the language as of Ada 2012. The cherry on top of the cake is that the language is also getting affine types on top of the already battle tested features in 40 years of production deployment into high integrity systems.
howinteresting 4y ago
I mean I'd personally rate the opinion of people who actually use Rust higher than people who don't. Rust isn't a silver bullet but it does shift the balance materially.