3 ms·
Yes, but if you're building an app for the future, then what excuse is there for not using Rust, which is both very low latency and very close to a 1.0 release?
by jnbiche 12y ago
Yes, but if you're building an app for the future, then what excuse is there for not using Rust, which is both very low latency and very close to a 1.0 release?
I get that sometimes you just want to hack in a language that's familiar to you, but then call your project a fun side project and not the "NTPD replacement" (and yes, I know who phk is).
- xorcist 12y agoPlease start by showing us the PLL in Rust (details are available at phk's blog) and reason about how those changes affects the workings of the program. Is it more readable? Less? More exact? That I would be interested in.
- jnbiche 12y agoIt's a little bit sad that at -3 votes, this is the lowest voted comment I've ever had in my ~4 years on HN, lower than a number of controversial political comments. To clarify, I'm not claiming that everyone should start using Rust. Now was I claiming that PHK is somehow unqualified for the task, far from it. I'm not even saying C is a bad language (I like C), or that people should stop using C altogether. But if you're building an security-critical application designed to be used in the future across millions of servers, and one that requires low-latency, I simply don't understand why you wouldn't strongly consider Rust, which offers strong guarantees about memory and type safety along with low latency and a very modern and complete standard library. Or Ada. Or OCaml.