5 ms·

I think we will get the same safety benefits of Rust in a version of C relatively soon.

by uecker 2y ago

koakuma-chan 2y ago
Borrow checker is not the only feature that makes Rust great though.
- uecker 2y ago
  Yes, it also has many aspects I do not like about it. Let's not pretend everybody shares your enthusiasm for it.
  - koakuma-chan 2y ago
    What aspects do you not like about Rust?
    - uecker 2y ago
      Too much complexity, long build times, monomorphization, lack of stability / no standard, poor portability, supply chain issues, no dynamic linking, no proper standard, not enough different implementations, etc. It is a nice language though, but I do not prefer it over C.
      - koakuma-chan 2y ago
        > long build times, monomorphization Monomorphization is what causes long build times, but it brings better performance than dynamic dispatch. > lack of stability There was another comment which also never elaborated on how Rust is not stable. > supply chain issues Not a language issue, you choose your dependencies. > no proper standard, not enough different implementations Is that a practical problem? > no dynamic linking There is.
        uecker 2y ago
        If your like Rust, this is fine, but I will stay with C. I find it much better for my purposes.
        ryao 2y ago
        He said elsewhere that he does not even use Rust. He uses typescript. I am confused why he is bothering to push Rust when he does not even use it.
        koakuma-chan 2y ago
        I would use it if I had the opportunity, that's why.
        whytevuhuni 2y ago
        > > no dynamic linking > There is. Eh, I'm a Rust fan, and I hate the dynamic linking situation too. I genuinely cannot see how Rust would be able to scale to something usable for all system applications the way it is now. Is every graphical application supposed to duplicate and statically link the entire set of GNOME/GTK or KDE/Qt libraries it needs? The system would become ginormous. The only shared library support we have now is either using the C ABI, which would make for a horrible way to use Rust dependencies, or by pinning an exact version of the Rust compiler, which makes developing for the system almost impossible. Hopefully we'll get something with #[export] [1] and extern "crabi" [2], but until then Rust won't be able to replace many things C and C++ are used for. [1] https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3435 https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3435 [2] https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3470 https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3470
        koakuma-chan 2y ago
        > I genuinely cannot see how Rust would be able to scale to something usable for all system applications the way it is now. Is every graphical application supposed to duplicate and statically link the entire set of GNOME/GTK or KDE/Qt libraries it needs? The system would become ginormous. You don't have to statically link C libraries.

I think we will get the same safety benefits of Rust in a version of C relatively soon.

by uecker 2y ago

I think we will get the same safety benefits of Rust in a version of C relatively soon.

koakuma-chan 2y ago

Borrow checker is not the only feature that makes Rust great though.

uecker 2y ago
Yes, it also has many aspects I do not like about it. Let's not pretend everybody shares your enthusiasm for it.
- koakuma-chan 2y ago
  What aspects do you not like about Rust?
  - uecker 2y ago
    Too much complexity, long build times, monomorphization, lack of stability / no standard, poor portability, supply chain issues, no dynamic linking, no proper standard, not enough different implementations, etc. It is a nice language though, but I do not prefer it over C.
    - koakuma-chan 2y ago
      > long build times, monomorphization Monomorphization is what causes long build times, but it brings better performance than dynamic dispatch. > lack of stability There was another comment which also never elaborated on how Rust is not stable. > supply chain issues Not a language issue, you choose your dependencies. > no proper standard, not enough different implementations Is that a practical problem? > no dynamic linking There is.
      - uecker 2y ago
        If your like Rust, this is fine, but I will stay with C. I find it much better for my purposes.
        ryao 2y ago
        He said elsewhere that he does not even use Rust. He uses typescript. I am confused why he is bothering to push Rust when he does not even use it.
        koakuma-chan 2y ago
        I would use it if I had the opportunity, that's why.
      - whytevuhuni 2y ago
        > > no dynamic linking > There is. Eh, I'm a Rust fan, and I hate the dynamic linking situation too. I genuinely cannot see how Rust would be able to scale to something usable for all system applications the way it is now. Is every graphical application supposed to duplicate and statically link the entire set of GNOME/GTK or KDE/Qt libraries it needs? The system would become ginormous. The only shared library support we have now is either using the C ABI, which would make for a horrible way to use Rust dependencies, or by pinning an exact version of the Rust compiler, which makes developing for the system almost impossible. Hopefully we'll get something with #[export] [1] and extern "crabi" [2], but until then Rust won't be able to replace many things C and C++ are used for. [1] https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3435 https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3435 [2] https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3470 https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3470
        koakuma-chan 2y ago
        > I genuinely cannot see how Rust would be able to scale to something usable for all system applications the way it is now. Is every graphical application supposed to duplicate and statically link the entire set of GNOME/GTK or KDE/Qt libraries it needs? The system would become ginormous. You don't have to statically link C libraries.