2 ms·
I am extremely skeptical of any "concurrency made easy" claims. Rust has probably the best claim in that area but it's still pretty limited, and comes at the co
by o11c 2y ago
I am extremely skeptical of any "concurrency made easy" claims. Rust has probably the best claim in that area but it's still pretty limited, and comes at the cost of making it hard to write normal code.
- cogman10 2y agoI wouldn't (and didn't) say "easy" just "easier". The thing that makes rust concurrency so gnarly to work with is the lifetime battles you have to do in order to make it work. That's still better than C/C++ because you aren't dealing with accidental memory corruption when the wrong thread frees memory at the wrong time. For languages like rust/C/C++, thread safe data structures are VERY hard to pull off. That's because tracking the lifetime of things tracked by the data structures introduces all sorts of heartburn. What GCed languages buy you is not needing to track those lifetimes. Yes, you can still have data races and shared memory mutation problems, but you can also write thread safe data structures like caches without the herculean efforts needed to communicate with users of the cache who owns what when and when that thing dies. The best that Rust and C++ can do to solve these problems is ARC and a LOT of copying.