6 ms·

> Google was already sold on the idea, having concluded that its Rust developers are twice as productive as its C++ engineers. Not so. The actual study compare

by trott 2y ago

> Google was already sold on the idea, having concluded that its Rust developers are twice as productive as its C++ engineers. Not so. The actual study compared the cost of writing something in C++ to the cost of porting it to Rust.

Joel_Mckay 2y ago
Some people are going to embrace what they want to hear. Rust has a different use-case than C, and just like C people tried to apply it in every situation regardless of whether it was appropriate. Personally, running some shell script on a website is not the preferred installation method of a trusted compiler. Also, porting something that must make low-level memory unsafe operations anyway... into another bodged build ecosystem is pointlessly ridiculous, and outright dangerous in some settings. At this point, the Rust AstroTurf campaign has gone full Troll. lol =3
- ycombinatrix 2y ago
  Don't be mad that C is being deprecated. Be happy that it existed. Lol =3
  - Joel_Mckay 2y ago
    My point was if you are going for a safer high-level llvm language, than there are far better options than Rust... which includes many of the same core issues C encountered. All software is terrible, but some of it is useful... We have seen several languages go on the same trajectory Rust is taking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_in,_garbage_out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_in,_garbage_out (you should probably assume the Von Neumann architecture will end soon too... half joking... ) Have a nice day, =3
    - anonfordays 2y ago
      >My point was if you are going for a safer high-level llvm language, than there are far better options than Rust Mind naming any? Mind naming any that aren't just toy languages?
      - Joel_Mckay 2y ago
        All programming languages are toys from my perspective, so your question only can receive a paradoxical opinion. In general, I'm a Julia Fan, and Xcode escapee (supports: Swift, C++, Objective-C, Objective-C++, Java, AppleScript, Python, Ruby, C, Pascal, Ada, C#, Go, Perl, and D.) However, I'd trust only C in a non-llvm compiled role for real-time firmware. The answer as to "why?" takes about a decade to fully understand... Sometimes a bit longer for some... Sometimes never for others... =3
        wtallis 2y ago
        You keep making odd references to llvm. Is there some reason you believe a decent compiler cannot be built using llvm, or are you harboring some misconceptions about what llvm is based on the "vm" part of the name?
        Joel_Mckay 2y ago
        ARM released several SoC products that blurred the use-cases in "A"pplications, "R"eal-time systems, and embedded "M"icrocontrollers. However, the llvm compilers performance gains are only justifiable in multitasking/Application contexts, where one does not require predictable/verifiable real-time code motion behavior in well modeled stable execution use-cases. Probably not cool enough to clear a project on Rust yet... and note repeating myself about why differing use-cases matter usually requires a paid invoice. =3
        wtallis 2y ago
        > predictable/verifiable real-time code motion behavior That still sounds like you might be failing to understand that a compiler based on llvm can (and usually does) produce native machine code that is fully compiled and not running in any kind of JIT or virtual machine environment. And compilers like clang let you turn of optimizations just like gcc does.
        Joel_Mckay 2y ago
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - ActorNightly 2y ago
    Until someone rewrites the entire Linux kernel in Rust, (without unsafes) its not going away. And to do that, a lot of the logic has to be re-thought to fit into Rust memory safe runtimes, which is not a straightforward thing. Basically, at this point, AI checking C code and making it memory safe is going to come way sooner than Rust adoption.
    - Joel_Mckay 2y ago
      Don't fall for the troll my friend... As Linux is also vulnerable to weird architecture changes that seem to favor microkernels/nanokernel instead. =3
  - consteval 2y ago
    It makes no sense to write ultra low-level code in Rust. You're gonna have to do unsafe operations and pointer arithmetic by design in those situations. Unsafe Rust is hardly ergonomic.

by trott 2y ago

Joel_Mckay 2y ago

Some people are going to embrace what they want to hear. Rust has a different use-case than C, and just like C people tried to apply it in every situation regardless of whether it was appropriate. Personally, running some shell script on a website is not the preferred installation method of a trusted compiler. Also, porting something that must make low-level memory unsafe operations anyway... into another bodged build ecosystem is pointlessly ridiculous, and outright dangerous in some settings. At this point, the Rust AstroTurf campaign has gone full Troll. lol =3

ycombinatrix 2y ago
Don't be mad that C is being deprecated. Be happy that it existed. Lol =3
- Joel_Mckay 2y ago
  My point was if you are going for a safer high-level llvm language, than there are far better options than Rust... which includes many of the same core issues C encountered. All software is terrible, but some of it is useful... We have seen several languages go on the same trajectory Rust is taking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_in,_garbage_out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_in,_garbage_out (you should probably assume the Von Neumann architecture will end soon too... half joking... ) Have a nice day, =3
  - anonfordays 2y ago
    >My point was if you are going for a safer high-level llvm language, than there are far better options than Rust Mind naming any? Mind naming any that aren't just toy languages?
    - Joel_Mckay 2y ago
      All programming languages are toys from my perspective, so your question only can receive a paradoxical opinion. In general, I'm a Julia Fan, and Xcode escapee (supports: Swift, C++, Objective-C, Objective-C++, Java, AppleScript, Python, Ruby, C, Pascal, Ada, C#, Go, Perl, and D.) However, I'd trust only C in a non-llvm compiled role for real-time firmware. The answer as to "why?" takes about a decade to fully understand... Sometimes a bit longer for some... Sometimes never for others... =3
      - wtallis 2y ago
        You keep making odd references to llvm. Is there some reason you believe a decent compiler cannot be built using llvm, or are you harboring some misconceptions about what llvm is based on the "vm" part of the name?
        Joel_Mckay 2y ago
        ARM released several SoC products that blurred the use-cases in "A"pplications, "R"eal-time systems, and embedded "M"icrocontrollers. However, the llvm compilers performance gains are only justifiable in multitasking/Application contexts, where one does not require predictable/verifiable real-time code motion behavior in well modeled stable execution use-cases. Probably not cool enough to clear a project on Rust yet... and note repeating myself about why differing use-cases matter usually requires a paid invoice. =3
        wtallis 2y ago
        > predictable/verifiable real-time code motion behavior That still sounds like you might be failing to understand that a compiler based on llvm can (and usually does) produce native machine code that is fully compiled and not running in any kind of JIT or virtual machine environment. And compilers like clang let you turn of optimizations just like gcc does.
        Joel_Mckay 2y ago
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- ActorNightly 2y ago
  Until someone rewrites the entire Linux kernel in Rust, (without unsafes) its not going away. And to do that, a lot of the logic has to be re-thought to fit into Rust memory safe runtimes, which is not a straightforward thing. Basically, at this point, AI checking C code and making it memory safe is going to come way sooner than Rust adoption.
  - Joel_Mckay 2y ago
    Don't fall for the troll my friend... As Linux is also vulnerable to weird architecture changes that seem to favor microkernels/nanokernel instead. =3
- consteval 2y ago
  It makes no sense to write ultra low-level code in Rust. You're gonna have to do unsafe operations and pointer arithmetic by design in those situations. Unsafe Rust is hardly ergonomic.