Live data from Hacker News

2017 Rust Roadmap

github.com

81–90 of 201 posts

Re: 2017 Rust Roadmap

#81
Still no mention of standardization of a "systems language" that's served off a platform known to censor and manipulate... Klabnik and others have lashed out at people in the past over political ramblings, github has been known to engage in political correctness and majority shaming, ugh.

Why on earth do people trust Rust at all? Without a standardized specification there's absolutely no good reason to trust mozilla code, and there's no "correct" way to work on a more properly FOSS implementation since they're essentially just making it up as they go along.

I fear that rust will suffer a Java death, where some of the brightest engineers are conned into working on something people will come to detest later on.

From a langtheory perspective, rust is one of the most backwards, mixed up, kludgy languages to come to light recently but it's ultimately a moot point since most languages are terrible anyways once you get to know them.

C++ already works, why don't we just improve on whatever's lacking?

Rust astroturfers like pcwalton and klabnik can't wait to explain why go isn't competing with rust since they didn't opt for zero cost abstractions in some cases and instead chose to have a coherent language, but go GC is now down to under 5ms, and while I'm honestly not a fan of Google any more than mozilla, I gotta respect the visionaries behind go, the stick-to-it-iveness of the design team, and the relentless performance increases over the past couple years.

I'd rather write lisp or Julia or ruby or something fun than most other junk languages, but watching the front lines of allegedly performant languages always gives me ideas on how to make my own projects faster or more efficient.

Re: 2017 Rust Roadmap

#82
post #75
post #52

Awesome. I have used Iron a few times to write small web services, but I can't wait for Rust to really have a strong story for the backend. If that happens it'll be the first language I reach for whenever I need to write a backend. I think it has a lot of great bonuses already. It's language ergonomics are that of a high-level language, yet it is extremely fast, and I can be very confident in my code if it compiles.…

Are you saying that Rust, a system programming language, can compete with the scripting languages in speed of developing features?! Or are you saying that it is a pleasure to use, so you'll use it for smaller backends where development speed isn't that critical? (Asking, not flaming. :-) )

the goal of 2017 "robust, high-scale servers" is maybe for this. scripts have fast developing speed,but are not always robust,high-scale,specially for those backend services developed by many developers,here are fields of java,go,.net,even c++.a language with safety,high performance,low resource consumtion is strong competitor.languages with GC such as JAVA are resource monsters,specially when there are unlimited microservices running simultaneously

Re: 2017 Rust Roadmap

#83
post #15

I read through the Rust book, and the problem I was having with it and the other docs is that it was hard to map the Rust concepts with what actually runs when it is compiled. For a language that touts "uncompromising performance", it was difficult for me to find performance characteristics of the underlying abstractions and std library (for example, are algebraic data structures just tagged unions or does the compil…

> for example, are algebraic data structures just tagged unions They're tagged unions with no implicit heap allocations. I guess we should at least document that in the reference (though we don't want to overspecify, because we do some tricks in the compiler to try to avoid leaving space for the tag if we can). But I don't think it'd be a good idea to document this straight away in the book: the goal is to make Rust…

Speaking of "guaranteed not to allocate", is there a way that you could express that in a type? Seems like that might be nice to have.

Re: 2017 Rust Roadmap

#84
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> for example, are algebraic data structures just tagged unions They're tagged unions with no implicit heap allocations. I guess we should at least document that in the reference (though we don't want to overspecify, because we do some tricks in the compiler to try to avoid leaving space for the tag if we can). But I don't think it'd be a good idea to document this straight away in the book: the goal is to make Rust…

Speaking of "guaranteed not to allocate", is there a way that you could express that in a type? Seems like that might be nice to have.

Not in Rust's type system. In a pure language, you could have some sort of "Heap" monad similar to the "IO" type in Haskell.

Re: 2017 Rust Roadmap

#85
post #59
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > any nontrivial project will make use of unsafe blocks. I don't think that's actually true? Most projects make use of no unsafe outside of stdlib and a handful of crates.io crates.

stdlib has plenty of unsafe blocks inside it, as do many crates. Claiming one doesn't use unsafe blocks because none are visible in one's lib.rs or whatever doesn't mean they aren't there.

Every language that exists, compiled or interpreted, typed or untyped, ultimately relies on code which could violate every guarantee that language makes. Most often, that code is written in C or C++, and is a part of the language's runtime or compiler toolchain.

Re: 2017 Rust Roadmap

#86

Still no mention of standardization of a "systems language" that's served off a platform known to censor and manipulate... Klabnik and others have lashed out at people in the past over political ramblings, github has been known to engage in political correctness and majority shaming, ugh. Why on earth do people trust Rust at all? Without a standardized specification there's absolutely no good reason to trust mozilla…

>From a langtheory perspective, rust is one of the most backwards, mixed up, kludgy languages to come to light recently..

Would really like to know more about this. It is not very often that you come across Rust criticism in this forum.

>C++ already works, why don't we just improve on whatever's lacking?

But can it done in such a way that it works with the rest of the language and standard library?

Re: 2017 Rust Roadmap

#87

Still no mention of standardization of a "systems language" that's served off a platform known to censor and manipulate... Klabnik and others have lashed out at people in the past over political ramblings, github has been known to engage in political correctness and majority shaming, ugh. Why on earth do people trust Rust at all? Without a standardized specification there's absolutely no good reason to trust mozilla…

A Java "death", where it becomes one of the most popular programming languages in industry? Rust should be so lucky.

Re: 2017 Rust Roadmap

#88
post #75
post #52

Awesome. I have used Iron a few times to write small web services, but I can't wait for Rust to really have a strong story for the backend. If that happens it'll be the first language I reach for whenever I need to write a backend. I think it has a lot of great bonuses already. It's language ergonomics are that of a high-level language, yet it is extremely fast, and I can be very confident in my code if it compiles.…

Are you saying that Rust, a system programming language, can compete with the scripting languages in speed of developing features?! Or are you saying that it is a pleasure to use, so you'll use it for smaller backends where development speed isn't that critical? (Asking, not flaming. :-) )

> Are you saying that Rust, a system programming language, can compete with the scripting languages in speed of developing features?!

I'll say it. At work, the backend is Rails, and I am a Rust contributor in my freetime. I am in the early stages of working on a framework for web apps in Rust & I believe it will be comparatively productive to Rails. Only your code will be faster and many bugs will be caught at compile time.

Re: 2017 Rust Roadmap

#89
post #80

I would love to see Rust with a REPL. I use Python professionally a lot and have done a fair amount of OCaml in my spare time and both have excellent REPls in the form of `ipython` and `coretop`. Quick experiments with auto-complete is incredibly helpful for exploring a language. That's the only thing I really miss from those languages; when I want to wrap my head around a bit of syntax or a library feature in Rust,…

I heard a while back that there was some work going into an interpreter for rust's mid-level IR (MIR), with the intention being to support a REPL. Not sure how that is going though.

The project you're thinking of is called miri, I don't really know the state of it either.

https://github.com/solson/miri

Re: 2017 Rust Roadmap

#90

I would love to see Rust with a REPL. I use Python professionally a lot and have done a fair amount of OCaml in my spare time and both have excellent REPls in the form of `ipython` and `coretop`. Quick experiments with auto-complete is incredibly helpful for exploring a language. That's the only thing I really miss from those languages; when I want to wrap my head around a bit of syntax or a library feature in Rust,…

There is rusti https://github.com/murarth/rusti
Post reply on HN