5 ms·
In the case of Rust, I think the hype actually is well-founded, technically. It is aiming for a niche that I have seen no one claim that any other language has
by Dewie 12y ago
In the case of Rust, I think the hype actually is well-founded, technically. It is aiming for a niche that I have seen no one claim that any other language has accomplished to fill before. So unless you know of some languages that have memory safety with no form of enforced garbage collection (it's part of the library, but completely optional), I'll say that Rust has merit on its own, no matter what organization is backing it.
- lucian1900 12y agoATS can also do that.
- Dewie 12y agoDarn, forgot about that one. ATS does seem to get considerably less mention than Rust, which may be because of marketing and/or because it is even more scary than Rust (dependent types, oh my).
- lucian1900 12y agoIt's also rather unwieldy to use, much more so than other dependently typed languages (like Idris). Sadly, despite having useful-looking properties, I suspect it'll serve as little more than inspiration for others.
- Dewie 12y agoIt might be that it could serve the niche in which code has to be really performant, and you also need "complete" (to a strict degree) safety guarantees, and Rust can not give enough guarantees in that regard (and it is unacceptable to have a lot of unsafe-blocks). It could even complement Rust, in that regard. The biggest problem might be that ATS looks like a very intimidating language already (I have not tried it myself, so that is just my impression, but the creator seems to share the same sentiment), which might a bit too much of a burden for this purpose.