4 ms·

It's a resonant issue: if everyone is taught Python, it's the tool they will reach for. And of course, Python is much more broadly applicable. I don't like to

by jasmer 4y ago

It's a resonant issue: if everyone is taught Python, it's the tool they will reach for. And of course, Python is much more broadly applicable. I don't like to develop in C++ because it's a tiresome mess of issues that don't exist in modern languages. I don't care about the newer variations or whatever, I still can't do basic things or pull in a library to do it 20 years later so no thanks. That said - it's not going to go away. While Rust is nice, I just don't see it replacing C/C++ for a long time due to abi incompatibility etc.. C++ does require more experience, and it needs to pay well or companies won't get the talent.

thedracle 4y ago
I'm really surprised at how stable and widely supported Rust's FFI is. I have several C++ projects that integrate a portion written in Rust, where the Rust project produces a .a file that is ultimately linked with clang into a larger C++ project. I definitely agree Rust has a long road to adoption in embedded/low level systems, and particularly areas with custom compilers/toolchains that rely heavily on system specific undefined behavior. But it's a lot closer than I had thought it was a year or so ago.
- jasmer 4y ago
  I agree. But I think it'll be hard to see Rust really make progress until hardware makers worldwide start really doing 'Rust First'. And the problem there, is that Rust is a bit inaccessible to many. Rust trades of absolutely everything for performance - and that's just not the trade-off we want to make in most scenarios. Even for most embedded systems - something that's easy to program, easy to read, easy to support, great tooling etc. is worth more than a 'a bit faster performance'. If we were to have created something ideal for embedded systems, it would not be Rust. I think it'd be a bit more like Go. Or just like a 'Safe C' with a lot better built-in libraries. I like Rust but I fear it is not 'the one' and the bandwagon has already left the station so we have to go with it.
  - steveklabnik 4y ago
    ARM is a member of the Rust Foundation. Expressif has started actively paying someone to write Rust libraries for their chips. Long way to go, of course.

by jasmer 4y ago

thedracle 4y ago

I'm really surprised at how stable and widely supported Rust's FFI is. I have several C++ projects that integrate a portion written in Rust, where the Rust project produces a .a file that is ultimately linked with clang into a larger C++ project. I definitely agree Rust has a long road to adoption in embedded/low level systems, and particularly areas with custom compilers/toolchains that rely heavily on system specific undefined behavior. But it's a lot closer than I had thought it was a year or so ago.

jasmer 4y ago
I agree. But I think it'll be hard to see Rust really make progress until hardware makers worldwide start really doing 'Rust First'. And the problem there, is that Rust is a bit inaccessible to many. Rust trades of absolutely everything for performance - and that's just not the trade-off we want to make in most scenarios. Even for most embedded systems - something that's easy to program, easy to read, easy to support, great tooling etc. is worth more than a 'a bit faster performance'. If we were to have created something ideal for embedded systems, it would not be Rust. I think it'd be a bit more like Go. Or just like a 'Safe C' with a lot better built-in libraries. I like Rust but I fear it is not 'the one' and the bandwagon has already left the station so we have to go with it.
- steveklabnik 4y ago
  ARM is a member of the Rust Foundation. Expressif has started actively paying someone to write Rust libraries for their chips. Long way to go, of course.