3 ms·

I would expect crates like `stdlib-terminal` and `stdlib-web-api` in that case. Honestly, something feels off with Rust trying to advertise itself for embedded

by sesm 2y ago

I would expect crates like `stdlib-terminal` and `stdlib-web-api` in that case. Honestly, something feels off with Rust trying to advertise itself for embedded: no stdlib and encourage stack allocation, but then married to Clang (which doesn't have a good embedded target support) and have panic in the language. Building a C++ replacement for a browser engine rewrite and building a C replacement for embedded have different and often conflicting design constraints. It seems like Rust is a C++ replacement with extra unnecessary constraints of a C replacement.

palata 2y ago
I often wonder about this: obviously Rust is fashionable, and many people push to use it everywhere. But in a ton of situations, there are modern memory-safe languages (Go, Swift, Kotlin, Scala, Java, ...) that are better suited. To me Rust is good when you need the performance (e.g. computer vision) and when you don't want a garbage collector (e.g. embedded). So really, a replacement for C/C++. Even though it takes time because C/C++ have a ton of libraries that may not have been ported to Rust (yet). Anyway, I guess my point is that Rust should focus on the problem it solves. Sometimes I feel like people try to make it sound like a competitor to those other memory-safe languages and... even though I like Rust as a language, it's much easier to write Go, Swift or Kotlin than Rust (IMHO).
- jcgrillo 2y ago
  > it's much easier to write Go, Swift or Kotlin than Rust (IMHO). While I respect your opinion, I must say I find it much more difficult to get work done in golang than rust. Mainly due to stringly typed errors and nonexistent documentation culture. Trying to figure out what error states my program might get itself into is essentially a futile exercise in golang whereas in rust it's generally annotated right there in the source code by lsp.

by sesm 2y ago

palata 2y ago

I often wonder about this: obviously Rust is fashionable, and many people push to use it everywhere. But in a ton of situations, there are modern memory-safe languages (Go, Swift, Kotlin, Scala, Java, ...) that are better suited. To me Rust is good when you need the performance (e.g. computer vision) and when you don't want a garbage collector (e.g. embedded). So really, a replacement for C/C++. Even though it takes time because C/C++ have a ton of libraries that may not have been ported to Rust (yet). Anyway, I guess my point is that Rust should focus on the problem it solves. Sometimes I feel like people try to make it sound like a competitor to those other memory-safe languages and... even though I like Rust as a language, it's much easier to write Go, Swift or Kotlin than Rust (IMHO).

jcgrillo 2y ago
> it's much easier to write Go, Swift or Kotlin than Rust (IMHO). While I respect your opinion, I must say I find it much more difficult to get work done in golang than rust. Mainly due to stringly typed errors and nonexistent documentation culture. Trying to figure out what error states my program might get itself into is essentially a futile exercise in golang whereas in rust it's generally annotated right there in the source code by lsp.