3 ms·

It’s as amazing for web services as C++. There might be some niche use case, but would not be my first, nor second choice there. It is still a low-level langua

by kaba0 4y ago

It’s as amazing for web services as C++. There might be some niche use case, but would not be my first, nor second choice there. It is still a low-level language, and while it is expressive, that doesn’t stop the low-level constructs from leaking to high level abstractions — which is not a negative in itself, that’s the purpose of the language. It’s just a hard tradeoff when it comes to anything not needing low level considerations.

junon 4y ago
Anecdotally, async Tide (an HTTP framework for rust) outperforms any other HTTP framework or library I've ever used in the C/C++ space, including H2O. Pair that with minimal memory issues with Rust, and guaranteed none if the framework avoids unsafe blocks.
- diath 4y ago
  What point are you trying to make exactly? A framework being able to process a few more requests per second than another one in a synthetic benchmark doesn't change the fact that low level languages are simply not ergonomic for making websites.
  - junon 4y ago
    * in your opinion.
insanitybit 4y ago
What's low level about Rust is that memory operations are exposed somewhat. So you don't just have copies or automatic memory management, you have pointers. It's not really that hard, and actually it's wayyyy easier to understand than a lot of the weird reference rules in other languages. For example, lots of people trip on `append` in Go because it tries to hide pointer semantics. Having to write `&` sometimes is just not burdensome and it's frankly sad that so many professional developers, many with so-called computer science degrees, seem to think that a basic understanding of computers is too high a burden.
- kaba0 4y ago
  You are fighting a strawman, and it’s honestly quite the ego to look down on the majority of people working the same profession as you.
  - insanitybit 4y ago
    What straw man? You made these assertions: 1. Rust is low level 2. Low level details leak through abstractions 3. This creates a difficult trade off for use cases that do not require manipulation of low level constructs I am making these assertions: 1. Pointers are not particularly "low level" 2. The tradeoffs when pointers are abstracted away are worse 3. It is sad that trained professionals believe that pointers are difficult to understand

by kaba0 4y ago

junon 4y ago

Anecdotally, async Tide (an HTTP framework for rust) outperforms any other HTTP framework or library I've ever used in the C/C++ space, including H2O. Pair that with minimal memory issues with Rust, and guaranteed none if the framework avoids unsafe blocks.

diath 4y ago
What point are you trying to make exactly? A framework being able to process a few more requests per second than another one in a synthetic benchmark doesn't change the fact that low level languages are simply not ergonomic for making websites.
- junon 4y ago
  * in your opinion.

insanitybit 4y ago

What's low level about Rust is that memory operations are exposed somewhat. So you don't just have copies or automatic memory management, you have pointers. It's not really that hard, and actually it's wayyyy easier to understand than a lot of the weird reference rules in other languages. For example, lots of people trip on `append` in Go because it tries to hide pointer semantics. Having to write `&` sometimes is just not burdensome and it's frankly sad that so many professional developers, many with so-called computer science degrees, seem to think that a basic understanding of computers is too high a burden.

kaba0 4y ago
You are fighting a strawman, and it’s honestly quite the ego to look down on the majority of people working the same profession as you.
- insanitybit 4y ago
  What straw man? You made these assertions: 1. Rust is low level 2. Low level details leak through abstractions 3. This creates a difficult trade off for use cases that do not require manipulation of low level constructs I am making these assertions: 1. Pointers are not particularly "low level" 2. The tradeoffs when pointers are abstracted away are worse 3. It is sad that trained professionals believe that pointers are difficult to understand