4 ms·

It's quite hilarious to see the push back rust gets by the c/c++ community. Obviously their decades of hard work and experience to work with those languages are

by dtx1 2y ago

It's quite hilarious to see the push back rust gets by the c/c++ community. Obviously their decades of hard work and experience to work with those languages are overriding their reasoning circuits. Who in their right mind would defend a language that has such major and obvious design flaws if a genuine alternative is there.

constantcrying 2y ago
Many of the most widely used languages have obvious major design flaws. (JavaScript is one obvious candidate, python is another. How did a language which has no built-in floating point type become the number one language for numerical analysis?) The real question is what tradeoffs you are making and what you are gaining. Rust makes certain memory safety guarantees about the program at compile time, but at the same time it disallows perfectly safe constructions, which can exist in C++, as well.
- brigadier132 2y ago
  I think DARPA is making the right decision about choosing Rust as the language for low level systems programming. For national security related matters you'd definitely want the certainty Rust brings. The reason I personally chose Rust as my go to language for low level programming is that despite learning systems programming in college I pretty much never used it outside of school. Meaning I didn't have any of that knowledge that c and c++ programmers had built up over years of experience. So I decided that instead of having to deal with the unknown skill deficiencies in writing concurrent software and memory management I'd rather just have a compiler scream at me. I don't regret the decision. Also, I remember writing an async TCP implementation in college with c++ using boost. Rust tooling is just so far ahead of that.
  - wslh 2y ago
    > I think DARPA is making the right decision about choosing Rust as the language for low level systems programming. For national security related matters you'd definitely want the certainty Rust brings. I see this differently: DARPA bets on different baskets in parallel. This is just one basket, if they are wrong it doesn't matter because there are other bets to reduce the general risk.
- dtx1 2y ago
  > JavaScript is one obvious candidate I don't see anyone defending JavaScript. In fact a whole lot of people are using typescript now because JavaScript is just so bad. As for python, that's a good point. I guess it's just because it's easy to use and all the numerical stuff is done with c-bindings anyway? But the C++ Situation is genuinely different. There's a reason governments are now calling upon developers to just let it die already[0]. That design flaw is so bad it's causing genuine harm. [0] https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/news/urgent-need-memory-safety-software-products https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/news/urgent-need-memory-saf...
  - constantcrying 2y ago
    >I guess it's just because it's easy to use and all the numerical stuff is done with c-bindings anyway? No, it's horrible, because now you have both python types and numpy types, which don't really interact well with one another. If you are using a language made for numerical analysis (e.g. Julia), a lot of headaches disappear instantly. Python is 100% just a case of a language being used because it is being used. It has, by itself, few merits to many of the tasks it is actually being for. >design flaw It is a tradeoff though. Rust is paying that tradeoff by being very restrictive about certain patterns and being in general quite complex to learn.
ksp-atlas 2y ago
Honestly, it feels too limiting, I know about unsafe and stuff but there's just something about managing memory manually, Zig is a good middle ground imo
- poikroequ 2y ago
  I think it depends on the domain. You don't need Rusts memory safety guarantees everywhere for everything. But if you're writing some sensitive piece of code where security is crucial, it seems crazy to not use a language like Rust.

by dtx1 2y ago

constantcrying 2y ago

Many of the most widely used languages have obvious major design flaws. (JavaScript is one obvious candidate, python is another. How did a language which has no built-in floating point type become the number one language for numerical analysis?) The real question is what tradeoffs you are making and what you are gaining. Rust makes certain memory safety guarantees about the program at compile time, but at the same time it disallows perfectly safe constructions, which can exist in C++, as well.

brigadier132 2y ago
I think DARPA is making the right decision about choosing Rust as the language for low level systems programming. For national security related matters you'd definitely want the certainty Rust brings. The reason I personally chose Rust as my go to language for low level programming is that despite learning systems programming in college I pretty much never used it outside of school. Meaning I didn't have any of that knowledge that c and c++ programmers had built up over years of experience. So I decided that instead of having to deal with the unknown skill deficiencies in writing concurrent software and memory management I'd rather just have a compiler scream at me. I don't regret the decision. Also, I remember writing an async TCP implementation in college with c++ using boost. Rust tooling is just so far ahead of that.
- wslh 2y ago
  > I think DARPA is making the right decision about choosing Rust as the language for low level systems programming. For national security related matters you'd definitely want the certainty Rust brings. I see this differently: DARPA bets on different baskets in parallel. This is just one basket, if they are wrong it doesn't matter because there are other bets to reduce the general risk.
dtx1 2y ago
> JavaScript is one obvious candidate I don't see anyone defending JavaScript. In fact a whole lot of people are using typescript now because JavaScript is just so bad. As for python, that's a good point. I guess it's just because it's easy to use and all the numerical stuff is done with c-bindings anyway? But the C++ Situation is genuinely different. There's a reason governments are now calling upon developers to just let it die already[0]. That design flaw is so bad it's causing genuine harm. [0] https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/news/urgent-need-memory-safety-software-products https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/news/urgent-need-memory-saf...
- constantcrying 2y ago
  >I guess it's just because it's easy to use and all the numerical stuff is done with c-bindings anyway? No, it's horrible, because now you have both python types and numpy types, which don't really interact well with one another. If you are using a language made for numerical analysis (e.g. Julia), a lot of headaches disappear instantly. Python is 100% just a case of a language being used because it is being used. It has, by itself, few merits to many of the tasks it is actually being for. >design flaw It is a tradeoff though. Rust is paying that tradeoff by being very restrictive about certain patterns and being in general quite complex to learn.

ksp-atlas 2y ago

Honestly, it feels too limiting, I know about unsafe and stuff but there's just something about managing memory manually, Zig is a good middle ground imo

poikroequ 2y ago
I think it depends on the domain. You don't need Rusts memory safety guarantees everywhere for everything. But if you're writing some sensitive piece of code where security is crucial, it seems crazy to not use a language like Rust.