Rust is mostly safety
graydon2.dreamwidth.org
Rust is mostly safety
1–10 of 474 posts
Re: Rust is mostly safety
#2I'll probably be writing a slightly longer response post to this later, but for now... EDIT: here it is: http://words.steveklabnik.com/fire-mario-not-fire-flowers
I think the core of it is this:
> Safety in the systems space is Rust's raison d'être. Especially safe concurrency (or as Aaron put it, fearless concurrency). I do not know how else to put it.
But you just did! That is, I think "fearless concurrency" is a better pitch for Rust than "memory safety." The former is "Hey, you know that thing that's really hard for you? Rust makes it easy." The latter is, as Dave[1] says, "eat your vegetables."
I'm not advocating that Rust lose its focus on safety from an implementation perspective. What I am saying is that the abstract notation of "safety" isn't compelling to a lot of people. So, if we want to make the industry more safe by bringing Rust to them, we have to find a way to make Rust compelling to those people.
Re: Rust is mostly safety
#3Does Rust have template metaprogramming? And does it look more clean and organized than boost's C++ implementation?
Re: Rust is mostly safety
#4Does Rust have template metaprogramming? And does it look more clean and organized than boost's C++ implementation?
Rust has three main forms of metaprogramming: generics, which are kind of like templates, but more like concepts (in C++ terms), macros, and compiler plugins.
Re: Rust is mostly safety
#5> countless lives lost
I have no doubt that people have had their lives ruined, or even died, as the result of flaws in system programming, but is anyone actually tracking this? Is it "countless?"
Re: Rust is mostly safety
#6In case you missed that there's a big disillusioned C++ crowd out there.
Just hear the pain: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13276351
And some of them are watching you with great interest.
Re: Rust is mostly safety
#7> countless lives lost I have no doubt that people have had their lives ruined, or even died, as the result of flaws in system programming, but is anyone actually tracking this? Is it "countless?"
Well, if no one is tracking it, there is no count and that would thus be countless.
But in all seriousness, I am curious about this as well.
Re: Rust is mostly safety
#8Does Rust have template metaprogramming? And does it look more clean and organized than boost's C++ implementation?
Rust has three main forms of metaprogramming: generics, which are kind of like templates, but more like concepts (in C++ terms), macros, and compiler plugins.
worth noting that Rust generics aren't (by design!) as powerful as C++ templates. macros and compiler plugins OTOH...
Re: Rust is mostly safety
#9> [Go] failed to provide a safe concurrency model.
What did he mean by this?
Re: Rust is mostly safety
#10I'll probably be writing a slightly longer response post to this later, but for now... EDIT: here it is: http://words.steveklabnik.com/fire-mario-not-fire-flowers I think the core of it is this: > Safety in the systems space is Rust's raison d'être. Especially safe concurrency (or as Aaron put it, fearless concurrency). I do not know how else to put it. But you just did! That is, I think "fearless concurrency" is a b…
As someone watching from the sidelines... maybe it's the cynic in me, but I think you're giving too much credit to the "but I don't have safety problems" folk. Judging by how defensive they get, it's just a post-hoc rationalization to why they won't invest time learning it. That's fine but, IMHO, not a marketing problem and just good old resistance to change. There's an endless stream of excuses to choose from, no matter how you pitch Rust to them.
I'm all up for a marketing shift though. I agree Rust is much more than safety and I think graydon2 missed your point there. The fireflower simile is excellent. Plus I've seen lots of people confused about Rust, including here on HN. Those are the people to whom marketing failed and should be targeted better.