3 ms·
Wouldn't a better test be to see if you can implement something which the language is meant to be good at implementing? Even though a language might be a good f
by Dewie 12y ago
Wouldn't a better test be to see if you can implement something which the language is meant to be good at implementing? Even though a language might be a good fit for writing compilers (shown by being implemented "in itself"), that might not have anything to do with the domain it is meant for.
The "thing" that rust is meant to be a good fit for is implementing Servo.
- jeorgun 12y agoIn principle, sure, but in practice the main reason people seem excited about Rust isn't as the language in which Servo is implemented; it's as a C++ killer (note, for instance, this article). If it's going to fulfill that role, then being good at writing compilers/runtimes is absolutely essential.
- Dewie 12y agoHow is C++ good for writing compilers?
- pcwalton 12y agoSpeed, and minimal dependencies.
- vertex-four 12y agoCompilers/runtimes aren't what most C++ code does, surely? EDIT: People are excited about it because of the promise of memory-safety (fewer crashes and security issues), as a primary driver. Servo is a proof that large-scale programs can be written in this way. They're not just excited about writing things in a new language for the hell of it.