4 ms·
Lots of safe languages are close enough to C speed, like Ocaml, Go, many JVM languages (w Graal native image if fast startup is needed like here), Ada, Swift, e
by fulafel 4y ago
Lots of safe languages are close enough to C speed, like Ocaml, Go, many JVM languages (w Graal native image if fast startup is needed like here), Ada, Swift, etc. You can still have kinds of memory bugs in all of these incl Rust, esp leaks.
- tracker1 4y agoWell, in the JS space, also seeing tooling come out in Go as well (esbuild) so I don't think it's just Rust... I do think the story to get an executable to a given environment is quite a bit better for Go or Rust than say C# or JVM... Distributing tools in those languages feels dirty by comparison, even if containers make applications much cleaner (in terms of dist/usage).
- fulafel 4y agoRe distribution - for JVM, w GraalVM native image you can do that as well. For example Babashka is distributed like that (https://github.com/babashka/babashka/releases https://github.com/babashka/babashka/releases)
- etra0 4y agoIt might been my ignorance but I haven't seen any tools written in JVM or Swift for these kind of scenarios, but I haven't looked too hard either. I do think Go has have success in the same space because it is fast, but IMO the ergonomics in Rust for this problem space are a bit better. Of course, that's just my opinion. > You can still have kinds of memory bugs in all of these incl Rust, esp leaks. You're right. Leaks are not covered in the memory safety guarantees by Rust, neither are OOMs, but you can't deny you're on a way more safer space than with either C or C++.