Rusky

77 ms·

811.
by Rusky 10y ago
Rust can totally compile on console platforms- it's been done, e.g. on PS4 ( https://twitter.com/wickerwaka/status/479842553831776257 ), as I'm sure you've seen, Steve :) The problem (speaking as some
812.
by Rusky 10y ago
I'm not saying this makes Rust as easy as Java or C#, but I don't think `Rc`/`RefCell` types are the cause, nor for that matter the solution to the cause. Idiomatic Rust makes single-threaded interior mutability very, very ra
813.
by Rusky 10y ago
Yes, it's the same line of logic because it's correct . The claim that Rust's memory safety is sound while C++'s is not is... not really the question. The question is whether that matters in practice . C++ has certainl
814.
by Rusky 10y ago
It is all a matter of mindset, but you are blindly ignoring the fact that it takes effort to learn a new mindset. Maybe it went smoothly for you and that's fine (though I suspect you're just not remembering it, perhaps willfully).
815.
by Rusky 10y ago
> - Move semantics - we've had this since C++11. C++11 move semantics and Rust move semantics are not equivalent. C++ requires every movable type to have a null state, and a (perhaps derived) move constructor that can potentially th
816.
by Rusky 10y ago
Rust has benefits for writing and maintaining correct code, sure. But your claim here is absolutely absurd. Rust is quite difficult to learn- anecdotally, empirically, and by nature. Being dishonest about Rust is not going to help anyone no
817.
by Rusky 10y ago
You have no data at all to back this up. The vulnerabilities you speak of are, far more often than not, written in old-style C and C++. That doesn't make Rust a bad idea, but it does mean your claim is completely unsubstantiated. Advoc
818.
by Rusky 10y ago
Right, I understand that it effectively eliminates GC usage, I'm just wondering how much of an impact that has on what tools you have. In the extreme, I can imagine it degenerating into basically writing C, for example.
819.
by Rusky 10y ago
I haven't used D much- how much of an impact does that have when using the standard library or other libraries? Is there a good way to use things that assume a GC even when it's disabled?
820.
by Rusky 10y ago
D has been around longer, has powerful compile-time metaprogramming tools, and has a very fast compiler. However, it has a garbage collector, and is not entirely memory-safe by default (though is beginning to optionally incorporate some ide
821.
by Rusky 10y ago
You can definitely do systems programming with a GC, but it does get in the way sometimes. Drivers will most likely need to bypass it entirely; more importantly, libraries to be embedded in other programs (including scripting languages) now
822.
by Rusky 10y ago
That kind of optimization is well outside the bounds of "sufficiently smart." It happens routinely.
823.
by Rusky 10y ago
This article is mostly a list of ways not to do entity/component- the sequel (linked at the bottom of the post: http://piemaster.net/2011/07/entity-component-artemis/ ) actually talks about how to do
824.
by Rusky 10y ago
> Just try and re-write some parts of curl in Rust I don't doubt that some suggestions have come from backseat drivers... but I also don't believe that's relevant. First, people are implementing curl's functionality
825.
by Rusky 10y ago
Rustc did recently get a "x86-interrupt" calling convention, but that's unrelated to #[no_std], and only works on x86. Either way, "#pragma interrupt" should work just as well in C++ as in C, since C++ doesn't
826.
by Rusky 10y ago
Not wyldfire, and I think that claim is a mischaracterization, but the main obstacle to using C++ in the kernel is that some of its language features require runtime support (new/delete, globals/statics with constructors, exceptio
827.
by Rusky 10y ago
What's to stop someone reverse engineering the blob before it's loaded into an SGX enclave? I don't understand it very well so I could be missing something, but wouldn't that at least let someone document how the DRM wor
828.
by Rusky 10y ago
Lower-end GPUs like Intel's integrated graphics and console hardware are doing this, but high-end desktop GPUs do not- they still have separate memory spaces (though they may share some memory).
829.
by Rusky 10y ago
I am well aware of managed C++ and C++/CLI. They are not the same language as native C++, in the sense that matters for WebAssembly's target audience. C++/CX is closer, but a) also still not the same language and b) doesn&#x2
830.
by Rusky 10y ago
Two reasons, beyond the sibling comment's notes that it's currently impossible: 1) You can't integrate it with the Javascript GC for interacting with the DOM and other JS-side objects 2) Now you have to distribute the GC with
831.
by Rusky 10y ago
WebAssembly also lacks Javascript's problems with its tool ecosystem, syntax, and exception handling system.
832.
by Rusky 10y ago
But they don't support the primary reason for asm.js and thus wasm- C and C++. They also, as you note in another comment, do not have the appropriate security model for web apps.
833.
by Rusky 10y ago
This has been brought up several times in this thread, but none of those bytecodes is sufficient. LLVM is not platform-agnostic, JVM/IL are sub-optimal for languages like C++. None of those platforms' security models are as good a
834.
by Rusky 10y ago
That's not at all relevant.
835.
by Rusky 10y ago
It makes complete sense to ask for GC support. Even if it's never used to implement GC-d languages targeting WebAssembly, it's still important for integration with the Javascript GC. (I imagine the threat here is that the more thi
836.
by Rusky 10y ago
A fair criticism of a lot of web tech, but not of WebAssembly, which is doing many things JVM/CLR/Flash/etc. never did.
837.
by Rusky 10y ago
How so? LLVM is used to implement language features, performance-hostile ones included. asm.js is a codified way to avoid language features. You may be confusing layers here. asm.js as a compilation target is used the same way as LLVM-
838.
by Rusky 10y ago
> asm.js But then you're no longer using the language . The performance-hostile semantics are still there, you're just not using that part of the language, and thus losing out on all their benefits.
839.
by Rusky 10y ago
This is wrong. There absolutely are technical reasons why implementations of different languages perform differently- no amount of static or runtime analysis can entirely save you from performance-hostile semantics baked into the language s
840.
by Rusky 10y ago
Alternatively, "free will" is just a name for some part of those physical processes.

More ›