3 ms·
> I do not take Rust to be remotely the final word in this space. It is the first memory safe systems language to be successful at industrial scale — not the la
by zengid 3y ago
> I do not take Rust to be remotely the final word in this space. It is the first memory safe systems language to be successful at industrial scale — not the last!
I think this side note is the most interesting tidbit, because I agree. I think Rust is a beautiful thing, but it's starting to get more competition now, and the "memory safe systems language" space is really starting to heat up. I'm particularly interested in seeing whether Val becomes its own thing, or if Swift and Rust (or another language) just absorb it's good ideas.
Rust is amazing and the community is full of great people, but there are a lot of rough edges and places that feel awkward for new folks. I appreciate seeing all of the constructive criticisms that have come out against Rust lately, and for folks like Tim McNamara who are pointing out all of Rust's rough edges in hopes of improving the language. If I were able to contribute more to the project, that is where I would focus, personally.
Also, Rust needs to get it's leadership issues sorted out. More and more projects are starting to sneak up on Rust, and if the folks in charge of the project keep fumbling the bag and causing rifts in the community (like with the Rust licensing, and driving phantomderp away), it's going to keep folks from wanting to do the hard work to improve the language.
- c_crank 3y agoIgnoring the long usage of Ada in the (military) industrial scale, or predecessors.
- nicce 3y agoA bit late reply, but that is the core problem for adaption. It is very commercial language after all. There is not big open source community. On military and aerospace level there is a lot of money to throw for language tooling. For indiciduals, not much is possible.
- retrac 3y agoAda still has killer features that haven't made it into C-like languages. One of my favourite is the split between the abstract/programmer's view of a type, and the machine implementation/representation of the type. There's no bit twiddling, no masking with 0xFFFF..., no worries about order in a struct or packing. If you have a 4 bit value, and want to store it in bits 27 ... 31 of a word, Ada lets you specify that. From the programmer's perspective, you work on the abstract type, perhaps defined as range 0 .. 15 in this case. (It can be any type that fits into the number of bits available, by the way.) It packs/unpacks transparently behind the scenes. And if you overflow that 0 .. 15 range it will raise an overflow/underflow exception. If you were trying to cram that 0 .. 15 range into only 3 bits, that'll raise a compile time error. Ever since I've encountered that its absence from the C family seems like a very obvious oversight.
- greatfilter251 3y ago[dead]