3 ms·
I meant manual memory management, in reference to having only-COW semantics wouldn’t make the rust fit for its target niche.
by kaba0 3y ago
I meant manual memory management, in reference to having only-COW semantics wouldn’t make the rust fit for its target niche.
- pjmlp 3y agoWell, even C# has manual memory management primitives, as one example out of many others.
- kaba0 3y agoYes I know, and I am a huge proponent of GCd languages as there really are only a tiny handful of cases where having a GC would be a problem. But this is out of context here, where we are talking about a language whose explicit design goal is to manually manage memory without a GC. In that respect, COW wouldn’t fit the rest of the design criteria of the language, which was my point.
- pjmlp 3y agoYeah, but that is another matter, and has nothing to do with the language level. Even C is considered high level nowadays, in regards to hardware exposure.
- kaba0 3y agoThere are two contending definitions for low/high level languages. The more objective one only considers assemblies low-level, but that is hardly a useful categorization. The other one is about what can be explicitly controlled by idiomatic code, in that vein C is lower level than, say, Java/C# due to pointer arithmetics (and yes, I do know that both can actually do pointer arithmetic just fine, but I wouldn’t call it idiomatic, especially not in case of Java). Rust/C++ is on the same level, if not lower than C due to having native access to SIMD.
- pjmlp 3y agoC# also has native access SIMD, and it will get even better on .NET 8. D also has it as well. Julia has native access to GPUs. So again other definition that isn't quite right on the spot. Yes, it is splitting hairs, and back to the point that outside Assembly everything is high level.