3 ms·

Or maybe it's because the tooling's lacking, the support in linux distributions is spotty, some architectures aren't supported, is complex to interoperate and i

Or maybe it's because the tooling's lacking, the support in linux distributions is spotty, some architectures aren't supported, is complex to interoperate and integrate with build systems, or any of the above? There's plenty of reasons one may opt to not to, however valid you may think they are.

colonwqbang 4y ago
This is an important point which is often ignored. Rust tooling isn't bad, but compared to C++ and especially C...
- Ygg2 4y ago
  Rust reuses a lot of C tooling (debugger, valgrind, callgrind, etc.). So...?
- woodruffw 4y ago
  Am I reading you correctly in saying that C and C++'s tooling is good compared to Rust? My experience in both (10+ years for C and C++ at this point, 3+ for Rust) is the exact opposite; I can't remember the last time a C or C++ build system, test framework, documentation engine made me one tenth as happy and satisfied as `cargo` does.
  - huggingmouth 4y ago
    Depends on what you care about in your tooling.
  - toyg 4y ago
    Depends on what you mean by "good". C/C++ tooling is certainly more plentiful, better-supported, and available on more platforms, than Rust at this point. That's somewhat natural, considering how much older the ecosystem is.
sanxiyn 4y ago
Rust is supported in all Debian release architectures. It kinds of has to, it is a build dependency of Firefox (and soon, Linux itself). To be more than a FUD, you should specify which Linux distribution and which architecture. Yes, it was bad in Rust's early days, but not anymore. I speak this as someone who worked to improve Rust support in Linux distributions and across architectures. It is fair to say Swift support in Linux distributions is spotty, as Swift is not packaged in Debian at all, and Swift upstream is developed against its own LLVM fork, which distributions are reluctant to package. I don't think it is fair to say the same to Rust. Rust upstream takes care to support LLVM releases, precisely so that it is easier to package by Linux distributions.
- toyg 4y ago
  > you should specify which Linux distribution Ah yes, Linux is the only OS in the world. How could I forget that?
  - sebzim4500 4y ago
    GGP specifically called out the (alleged lack of) support in linux distributions
- mid-kid 4y ago
  I said "spotty", not nonexistent. Many distributions patch around the lack of suitable support by vendoring all dependencies and locking their versions, making it hard to see the dependency graph from the package manager, scan for vulnerabilities, patch/fix a library across the entire distribution, etc etc.

colonwqbang 4y ago

This is an important point which is often ignored. Rust tooling isn't bad, but compared to C++ and especially C...

Ygg2 4y ago
Rust reuses a lot of C tooling (debugger, valgrind, callgrind, etc.). So...?
woodruffw 4y ago
Am I reading you correctly in saying that C and C++'s tooling is good compared to Rust? My experience in both (10+ years for C and C++ at this point, 3+ for Rust) is the exact opposite; I can't remember the last time a C or C++ build system, test framework, documentation engine made me one tenth as happy and satisfied as `cargo` does.
- huggingmouth 4y ago
  Depends on what you care about in your tooling.
- toyg 4y ago
  Depends on what you mean by "good". C/C++ tooling is certainly more plentiful, better-supported, and available on more platforms, than Rust at this point. That's somewhat natural, considering how much older the ecosystem is.

sanxiyn 4y ago

Rust is supported in all Debian release architectures. It kinds of has to, it is a build dependency of Firefox (and soon, Linux itself). To be more than a FUD, you should specify which Linux distribution and which architecture. Yes, it was bad in Rust's early days, but not anymore. I speak this as someone who worked to improve Rust support in Linux distributions and across architectures. It is fair to say Swift support in Linux distributions is spotty, as Swift is not packaged in Debian at all, and Swift upstream is developed against its own LLVM fork, which distributions are reluctant to package. I don't think it is fair to say the same to Rust. Rust upstream takes care to support LLVM releases, precisely so that it is easier to package by Linux distributions.

toyg 4y ago
> you should specify which Linux distribution Ah yes, Linux is the only OS in the world. How could I forget that?
- sebzim4500 4y ago
  GGP specifically called out the (alleged lack of) support in linux distributions
mid-kid 4y ago
I said "spotty", not nonexistent. Many distributions patch around the lack of suitable support by vendoring all dependencies and locking their versions, making it hard to see the dependency graph from the package manager, scan for vulnerabilities, patch/fix a library across the entire distribution, etc etc.