3a2d29

9 ms·

31.
by 3a2d29 4y ago
Interesting. I heard the Civilization games were Lua, didn’t know that was more common.
32.
by 3a2d29 4y ago
If that were true, all enterprise code would still be non-GC
33.
by 3a2d29 4y ago
Bloated is the problem, not language speed. I may have misspoke, what I meant was speed in language never matters. And the discord instance was because it was systems/performance critical software they rewrote. They didn’t rewrite th
34.
by 3a2d29 4y ago
I think you can have null safety in Go and you certainly can have adts. But even then, what about Ada? I’m also not an expert, but I assume between C#/Typescript/haskell/swift that you can find all those things in many GC&#x2
35.
by 3a2d29 4y ago
Right, but to my knowledge the other “safety” of rust is concurrency, which is easily attainable with something like Elixir. I’m not saying a GC guarantees all safety, I am saying you can find a GC language that gives all the safety (and te
36.
by 3a2d29 4y ago
Right that makes sense. I’m curious if the gaming industry will switch languages, it feels like with the current game engines that it’s heavily entrenched in C and C++. Feels like something like Carbon has the best chance to break in.
37.
by 3a2d29 4y ago
It’s hard to find any material on Jai. It seems to be a “better C”. Isn’t that what D / Zig try to do? What’s the advantage?
38.
by 3a2d29 4y ago
Go fits all of those, so does Ada.
39.
by 3a2d29 4y ago
1. No citation needed. I can take rust and do unsafe things in it. I can’t in a GC language. Rust allows you to use unsafe. 2. No. It is not at the expense of safety. Again, Rust allows you to do unsafe things using the “unsafe” keyword
40.
by 3a2d29 4y ago
Fair, but again I think you can get all those things with a GC language. Speed is the only one you may possibly not, but I think speed is an non-issue. Speed in programming never matters except in the systems space. No one is gonna be able
41.
by 3a2d29 4y ago
Right but my main point is this: Rust comes with additional risk. It is easier to leak memory, it is easier to be unsafe (especially since you can't guarantee what future other devs will do), but you gain nothing. You get all that ris
42.
by 3a2d29 4y ago
> borrow checker ensures that I don't leak memory when not using unsafe Also to point out, you can 100% leak memory in safe rust
43.
by 3a2d29 4y ago
I feel like the err != nil issue combines with GO using initialization to 0 values to be annoying. If you forget err != nil, well your value does actually have a value and you would think your result was 0.
44.
by 3a2d29 4y ago
What would you say to a C++ dev refusing to use rust because their code is memory safe and they have never had a memory safety issue? "Can" is the whole thing. A rust dev risking can is like a C++ dev risking can. I like rust and
45.
by 3a2d29 4y ago
You can find a GC language that does all those things that rust does but without: 1. The risk of future unsafety (a GC language will always safer than rust) 2. Faster development that's easier to change on a dime. 3. No risk of memory
46.
by 3a2d29 4y ago
> Easy test: Would you at least seriously consider using C/C++ for it? Only then should you use Rust. This is a great point. I understand liking a language, but don't bring Rust into a GC space (in industry, personal projects
47.
by 3a2d29 4y ago
I will die on the hill that Exceptions are absolutely terrible for readability and control flow and should die. Result<> or Go returning many values is wayyyy better.
48.
by 3a2d29 4y ago
I would say that using Rust for backend APIs seems a bit off. I like Rust, but introducing languages that can be made unsafe / can at a minimum memory leak seems irresponsible. Its dumb when the C++ community refuses rust when it guar
49.
by 3a2d29 4y ago
Also I think Ada is more memory safe than both C++ and rust! (with SPARK!)
50.
by 3a2d29 4y ago
You could argue that hiding ints and floats behind “num” is implicit conversion
51.
by 3a2d29 4y ago
Reading this comment, I realized I always thought: Scripting == interpreted Is that not the case?
52.
by 3a2d29 4y ago
I mean you can certainly fire 80% of engineers and the software still runs. Most workers if you fire 80%, there is an immediate drop in production. I think the loss of engineers is felt on a more long-term basis.
53.
by 3a2d29 4y ago
Relevant comic: https://xkcd.com/538/
54.
by 3a2d29 4y ago
https://www.infoq.com/news/2021/11/rudra-rust-safety/ Over 200 memory safety issues were found in public crates in rust. If code reviews were all it took to ensure memory safety, then we wouldn’t need th
55.
by 3a2d29 4y ago
Swift is also more memory safe than rust, which I imagine is another big reason to use it.
56.
by 3a2d29 4y ago
> performant, statically-typed, systems programming language And then OP lists only C++ and Rust. Both known well for having no garbage collector. I think my comment is still valid.
57.
by 3a2d29 4y ago
Of those languages, only Go could be argued to be “systems” and even then not if the GC is a deal breaker. OP wants a systems language.
58.
by 3a2d29 4y ago
I think you underestimate how attractive “get rich quick” schemes are, especially to new generations that didn’t experience the fad yet.
59.
by 3a2d29 4y ago
I am not saying rust is unfit and I think your first sentence gets to sorta my point. I agree no one writes actual kernels in GC languages. 100% Rust is the best choice where GCs can’t be. I think my argument is that if you can use a GC, I
60.
by 3a2d29 4y ago
I don’t think Carbon will have a borrow checker. I am under the impression it’s just checking array bounds and adding nicer syntax

More ›