5 ms·
The underlying point is correct though. Rust developers cannot be expected to maintain a C++ implementation of their language. Half of them learned Rust to get
by flooow 3y ago
The underlying point is correct though. Rust developers cannot be expected to maintain a C++ implementation of their language. Half of them learned Rust to get away from C++, the other half never knew C++ in the first place.
- gpm 3y agoFor what it's worth, rust developers are already maintaining an independent C++ implementation of the language: https://github.com/thepowersgang/mrustc https://github.com/thepowersgang/mrustc
- sylware 3y ago[flagged]
- ColonelPhantom 3y agoWell, rustc is the canonical Rust compiler. mrustc mostly just exists to aid in bootstrapping and really not much else.
- sylware 3y agoI make the difference between canonical and bootstrapping. When I said canonical, I meant the reference one which will actually be used to compile "normal" rust code. I guess this reference canonical rust compiler has the decency to be fully written using rust itself, am I wrong? (I was told it is, then if it is not, I was lied to)
- estebank 3y agoIt is trivial to verify for yourself without having the risk of being mislead by any person might tell you: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/master/compiler https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/master/compiler
- School-Cotton 3y agoThe frontend is written in Rust. The backend is just LLVM which is written in c++.
- sylware 3y agoI did check that, and indeed, we get the worst of both worlds. Really, this is not the "simpler" C syntax I was expecting to see in the end, it seems we get c++2 or c+++. I have been coding for decades from assembly, to many high level languages, I even looked at what seemed to be early rust syntax, and there... OMFG I cannot even read that code and make sense of it, the syntax seems filthy, absurdely, rich. Exactly what it was not supposed to be as far as I can recall. In my experience, the worst syntax was perl5, but it seems we have a serious new contender here. No, I am not meaning to be nice and complacent, you have to understand that something looks really bad here, and you have to expect such reaction as mine, this is to be expected in the look of this. I dunno which kind of organized people is financing and pushing that, there is a scent of Big Tech, aka teams of brain damaged people and scammers, worldwide scale. All I know is I am going to stay away from this, until I get some time to decrypt and understand that f*** syntax, yeah I sadi DECRYPT RUST SYNTAX you bloody lunatics. Yeah, we had team c++ and now we have team rust, GREAT!
- School-Cotton 3y agoHow clean the syntax looks is one of the least important things about a programming language. I don’t know why you’re so hung up on it. But yes, Rust’s syntax is more complex than that of C. Nobody has ever advertised Rust as “C with simpler syntax” so I’m not sure why you expected that.
- sylware 3y ago[flagged]
- School-Cotton 3y agoRust is much less complex than c++. Again, I’m not sure why you’re so focused on syntax. That’s the easiest part of a programming language to learn. The semantics, abstractions, etc. are what take the most effort to learn and MUCH simpler in Rust than in C++.
- Smaug123 3y agoSince when was "there is an alternative C++ compiler" anything to do with "the canonical compiler is in Rust"? The word "lie" here appears to have the sole purpose of aggravating the reader; it certainly has no meaning correlated with its usual meaning.
- arp242 3y agoMost Rust developers can outright ignore gccrs, and those that do want to use it will never need to look at the implementation. Would it be nicer if the GCC frontend was written in Rust? Sure, I guess. But in a quick look none of the GCC frontends are written in anything other than C++, and introducing a new language here would be an entire project on itself. And since GCC doesn't actually include mature Rust support (yet), this would also mean that building GCC would depend on LLVM.
- sylware 3y ago[flagged]