5 ms·

The real answer should have been a new language that has memory safety without all the extra conceptual changes and orthogonal subsystems that Rust brings. The

The real answer should have been a new language that has memory safety without all the extra conceptual changes and orthogonal subsystems that Rust brings. The core value of safety did not need the reinvention of everything else with the accompanying complexity and cognitive load. For example Zig which instead of introducing a new metaprogramkming language, it uses...... Zig - imagine using the same language instead of inventing a new additional language with all the accompanying complexity and cognitive load and problems. Rust is for those who revel in complexity. And traits - traits and extra complexity not needed for safety. And result and option and move by dedfault - none of these things were needed but they all add up to more complexity and unfamiliarity and cognitive load. And when you add it all together and intertwine it you end up with something so unfamiliar that it no longer looks like "ordinary programming" it looks like something from the Cambrian period.

LexiMax 9mo ago
As a C++ developer, my experience with learning both Rust and Zig is that they're both good languages, and any reasonably skilled C++ developer could learn either language if they put their mind to it. If you forced me to pick between Zig and Rust for a long-running project though, I'd pick Rust 10/10 times for the simple fact that it has been stable for more than a decade and already has momentum and funding behind it. Zig is a cool language - one that I've actually written more of than Rust - but it hasn't hit 1.0 yet and still has significant churn in both the language and standard library.
- wewewedxfgdf 9mo ago
  My point is this: Rust is complex. That is not a statement anyone can deny. Unless you're a Rust-bro "hey man I learned it so I’m baffled how you can't see it's super simple ..... etc etc" - often the implication that you're not very smart if you think Rust is complex. Of everything that I have learned about programming, this is the BIGGEST lesson: - complexity is bad, avoid complexity. Complex is not the same as "sophisticated", which implies necessary intricacy. Complex means unneeded unnecessary cognitive load - things made harder than they should be when it could have been avoided - that's complexity. If you are writing complex code then you're writing bad code. And Rust is complex. It is sad that we did not end up with a SIMPLE programming language that solves the memory safety problem. What we needed was Rust-- i.e Rust without all the non-safety related extras that make it different - it's all the non-safety add ons that makes Rust into a Rube Goldberg machine.
  - LexiMax 9mo ago
    > It is sad that we did not end up with a SIMPLE programming language that solves the memory safety problem. I am not a savant by any means, and yet I was able to get up and running with Rust relatively quickly. What Rust isn't is ergonomic, in that Rust gets very annoyed with the ways that one might want to structure their code. Trust me, I got bit by the borrow checker countless times, and it did grate on me. As a result, there are many tasks that I would avoid using Rust for, tasks where both speed and safety aren't critical. But if neither is a priority, the list of alternative languages I can resort to is quite long, much longer than Zig, C++, or C. And in the cases where both are a factor, I would consider being needled by the compiler to be a feature and not a bug.
  - adamnemecek 9mo ago
    > Rust is complex. Compared with what? C++? It is not.
    - wewewedxfgdf 9mo ago
      False equivalence.
      - vlovich123 9mo ago
        You focused on the C++ aspect and completely failed to engage with the actual critique - what is a “simple” language that you’re evaluating Rust against as a failure?
  - aw1621107 9mo ago
    > It is sad that we did not end up with a SIMPLE programming language that solves the memory safety problem. We did, arguably. Those languages are called JavaScript, Python, Java, C#, etc. Those languages tend to be eschewed in certain niches, though, and it's there that simplicity tends to be harder to achieve. > What we needed was Rust-- i.e Rust without all the non-safety related extras that make it different - it's all the non-safety add ons that makes Rust into a Rube Goldberg machine. I think it might also be worth considering that some people find those "non-safety related extras" a good thing. Dropping backwards compatibility and/or familiarity, just like everything else, is a tradeoff, and that tradeoff might be worth it if you think the resulting semantics are nicer to work with.
aw1621107 9mo ago
> The real answer should have been a new language that has memory safety without all the extra conceptual changes and orthogonal subsystems that Rust brings. The core value of safety did not need the reinvention of everything else with the accompanying complexity and cognitive load. What would the minimal set of features be, in your opinion? > For example Zig which instead of introducing a new metaprogramkming language, it uses...... Zig - imagine using the same language instead of inventing a new additional language with all the accompanying complexity and cognitive load and problems. Zig probably isn't the best comparison since Zig doesn't try to achieve the same level of compile-time memory safety guarantees that Rust aims for. For instance, Zig doesn't try to statically prevent use-after-frees or data races. That being said, as with everything it's a question of tradeoffs. Zig's metaprogramming approach is certainly interesting, but from what I understand it doesn't offer the same set of features as Rust's approach. For example: - Zig's generics are more similar to C++ templates in that only instantiated functions are fully checked by the compiler. Rust's generics, on the other hand, are completely checked at the definition site so if the definition type-checks the author knows it will type-check for all possible instantiations. Rust's approach also lends itself to nicer error messages since everything a generic needs is visible up front. - Zig's comptime isn't quite 1:1 with Rust's macros. comptime is for... well, compile-time computation (e.g., reflection, compile-time branching, or instantiating types). Macros are for manipulating syntax (e.g., code generation or adding inline support for other languages). Each has things the other can't do, though to be fair there is overlap in problems they can be used to solve. In any case, metaprogramming approaches are (mostly?) independent of memory safety. > And result and option and move by dedfault - none of these things were needed but they all add up to more complexity and unfamiliarity and cognitive load. I don't think Result/Option are that complex (if at all) since they're trivially derivable from discriminated unions/sum types/enums. I'm also not sure how move by default is necessarily "more complexity... and cognitive load"? Maybe as a result of unfamiliarity, perhaps, but that seems more a property of a person than a language, no?
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- timschmidt 9mo ago
  There's also https://docs.rs/proc-macro2/latest/proc_macro2/ https://docs.rs/proc-macro2/latest/proc_macro2/ which effectively allows for the construction of procedural macros with normal Rust possible. As well as enable the use of proc_macro types in normal rust. It'll make it to stable someday, I hope.
timschmidt 9mo ago
> The real answer should have been a new language that has memory safety without all the extra conceptual changes and orthogonal subsystems that Rust brings. So what you're saying here is that you don't understand that Rust's rules around memory ownership, aliasing, and mutability are what allow the language to provide deterministic compile time memory safety without runtime cost. If you figure out another way to guarantee memory safety at compile time with zero runtime overhead, you should write a paper and start another language around it! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_Hardware_Enhanced_RISC_Instructions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_Hardware_Enhanced_R... exists, and is an exciting, laudable effort, I think. But requires hardware support as well as language modifications.
- touisteur 9mo ago
  And even if you a runtime solution with no runtime cost, you'd still need to run the code, to find the memory safety bugs. Static analysis is supposed to tell you there is no path that violates memory safety.
blubber 9mo ago
Isn't Zig's repetitive ceremonial code around allocators+ allocation + defer *.deinit() a sign of a serious shortcoming like golang's error handling? If zig is so good at metaprogramming, why isn't there a metaprogramming solution to this repetitive code?
- jordand 9mo ago
  Memory allocations are always done explicitly (nothing is hidden or implicit). I've not written enough Zig yet to appreciate that, but I've hit plenty of those issues year-after-year with C++ to know their approach is sane and rational.
  - Measter 9mo ago
    Memory allocations in Rust are also always done explicitly, but Rust's library types don't have APIs that allow you to get it wrong.
    - vacuity 9mo ago
      Rust doesn't (yet) have the same level of control over allocators as Zig does.
      - Measter 9mo ago
        The Rust language has exactly that level of control. Rust's Alloc and STD implementations do not yet provide it.
        vacuity 9mo ago
        That's like saying Rust has GC because GC libraries/runtimes can be implemented in/for Rust. Rust recognizes allocations on a language basis, but does not provide the same level of control over allocations on a language basis as Zig does. For instance, there is no stable interface for custom allocators for alloc/std.

LexiMax 9mo ago

As a C++ developer, my experience with learning both Rust and Zig is that they're both good languages, and any reasonably skilled C++ developer could learn either language if they put their mind to it. If you forced me to pick between Zig and Rust for a long-running project though, I'd pick Rust 10/10 times for the simple fact that it has been stable for more than a decade and already has momentum and funding behind it. Zig is a cool language - one that I've actually written more of than Rust - but it hasn't hit 1.0 yet and still has significant churn in both the language and standard library.

wewewedxfgdf 9mo ago
My point is this: Rust is complex. That is not a statement anyone can deny. Unless you're a Rust-bro "hey man I learned it so I’m baffled how you can't see it's super simple ..... etc etc" - often the implication that you're not very smart if you think Rust is complex. Of everything that I have learned about programming, this is the BIGGEST lesson: - complexity is bad, avoid complexity. Complex is not the same as "sophisticated", which implies necessary intricacy. Complex means unneeded unnecessary cognitive load - things made harder than they should be when it could have been avoided - that's complexity. If you are writing complex code then you're writing bad code. And Rust is complex. It is sad that we did not end up with a SIMPLE programming language that solves the memory safety problem. What we needed was Rust-- i.e Rust without all the non-safety related extras that make it different - it's all the non-safety add ons that makes Rust into a Rube Goldberg machine.
- LexiMax 9mo ago
  > It is sad that we did not end up with a SIMPLE programming language that solves the memory safety problem. I am not a savant by any means, and yet I was able to get up and running with Rust relatively quickly. What Rust isn't is ergonomic, in that Rust gets very annoyed with the ways that one might want to structure their code. Trust me, I got bit by the borrow checker countless times, and it did grate on me. As a result, there are many tasks that I would avoid using Rust for, tasks where both speed and safety aren't critical. But if neither is a priority, the list of alternative languages I can resort to is quite long, much longer than Zig, C++, or C. And in the cases where both are a factor, I would consider being needled by the compiler to be a feature and not a bug.
- adamnemecek 9mo ago
  > Rust is complex. Compared with what? C++? It is not.
  - wewewedxfgdf 9mo ago
    False equivalence.
    - vlovich123 9mo ago
      You focused on the C++ aspect and completely failed to engage with the actual critique - what is a “simple” language that you’re evaluating Rust against as a failure?
- aw1621107 9mo ago
  > It is sad that we did not end up with a SIMPLE programming language that solves the memory safety problem. We did, arguably. Those languages are called JavaScript, Python, Java, C#, etc. Those languages tend to be eschewed in certain niches, though, and it's there that simplicity tends to be harder to achieve. > What we needed was Rust-- i.e Rust without all the non-safety related extras that make it different - it's all the non-safety add ons that makes Rust into a Rube Goldberg machine. I think it might also be worth considering that some people find those "non-safety related extras" a good thing. Dropping backwards compatibility and/or familiarity, just like everything else, is a tradeoff, and that tradeoff might be worth it if you think the resulting semantics are nicer to work with.

aw1621107 9mo ago

> The real answer should have been a new language that has memory safety without all the extra conceptual changes and orthogonal subsystems that Rust brings. The core value of safety did not need the reinvention of everything else with the accompanying complexity and cognitive load. What would the minimal set of features be, in your opinion? > For example Zig which instead of introducing a new metaprogramkming language, it uses...... Zig - imagine using the same language instead of inventing a new additional language with all the accompanying complexity and cognitive load and problems. Zig probably isn't the best comparison since Zig doesn't try to achieve the same level of compile-time memory safety guarantees that Rust aims for. For instance, Zig doesn't try to statically prevent use-after-frees or data races. That being said, as with everything it's a question of tradeoffs. Zig's metaprogramming approach is certainly interesting, but from what I understand it doesn't offer the same set of features as Rust's approach. For example: - Zig's generics are more similar to C++ templates in that only instantiated functions are fully checked by the compiler. Rust's generics, on the other hand, are completely checked at the definition site so if the definition type-checks the author knows it will type-check for all possible instantiations. Rust's approach also lends itself to nicer error messages since everything a generic needs is visible up front. - Zig's comptime isn't quite 1:1 with Rust's macros. comptime is for... well, compile-time computation (e.g., reflection, compile-time branching, or instantiating types). Macros are for manipulating syntax (e.g., code generation or adding inline support for other languages). Each has things the other can't do, though to be fair there is overlap in problems they can be used to solve. In any case, metaprogramming approaches are (mostly?) independent of memory safety. > And result and option and move by dedfault - none of these things were needed but they all add up to more complexity and unfamiliarity and cognitive load. I don't think Result/Option are that complex (if at all) since they're trivially derivable from discriminated unions/sum types/enums. I'm also not sure how move by default is necessarily "more complexity... and cognitive load"? Maybe as a result of unfamiliarity, perhaps, but that seems more a property of a person than a language, no?

deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
timschmidt 9mo ago
There's also https://docs.rs/proc-macro2/latest/proc_macro2/ https://docs.rs/proc-macro2/latest/proc_macro2/ which effectively allows for the construction of procedural macros with normal Rust possible. As well as enable the use of proc_macro types in normal rust. It'll make it to stable someday, I hope.

timschmidt 9mo ago

> The real answer should have been a new language that has memory safety without all the extra conceptual changes and orthogonal subsystems that Rust brings. So what you're saying here is that you don't understand that Rust's rules around memory ownership, aliasing, and mutability are what allow the language to provide deterministic compile time memory safety without runtime cost. If you figure out another way to guarantee memory safety at compile time with zero runtime overhead, you should write a paper and start another language around it! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_Hardware_Enhanced_RISC_Instructions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_Hardware_Enhanced_R... exists, and is an exciting, laudable effort, I think. But requires hardware support as well as language modifications.

touisteur 9mo ago
And even if you a runtime solution with no runtime cost, you'd still need to run the code, to find the memory safety bugs. Static analysis is supposed to tell you there is no path that violates memory safety.

blubber 9mo ago

Isn't Zig's repetitive ceremonial code around allocators+ allocation + defer *.deinit() a sign of a serious shortcoming like golang's error handling? If zig is so good at metaprogramming, why isn't there a metaprogramming solution to this repetitive code?

jordand 9mo ago
Memory allocations are always done explicitly (nothing is hidden or implicit). I've not written enough Zig yet to appreciate that, but I've hit plenty of those issues year-after-year with C++ to know their approach is sane and rational.
- Measter 9mo ago
  Memory allocations in Rust are also always done explicitly, but Rust's library types don't have APIs that allow you to get it wrong.
  - vacuity 9mo ago
    Rust doesn't (yet) have the same level of control over allocators as Zig does.
    - Measter 9mo ago
      The Rust language has exactly that level of control. Rust's Alloc and STD implementations do not yet provide it.
      - vacuity 9mo ago
        That's like saying Rust has GC because GC libraries/runtimes can be implemented in/for Rust. Rust recognizes allocations on a language basis, but does not provide the same level of control over allocations on a language basis as Zig does. For instance, there is no stable interface for custom allocators for alloc/std.