131–140 of 291 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Haskell has exceptions. So does Rust. People just prefer to use Either / Result (with good reason).
Exception in Haskell ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think a much more interesting question is how much safer a code written in rust today would be vs a C/C++ code written today , reflecting our current understanding and knowledge on how to build safe system. A lot safer, judging by browser exploits.
> reflecting our current understanding and knowledge on how to build safe system...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would be downright appalled if Rust were to start promoting exceptions. It's an anti-feature.
Being this emotionally invested in a feature, really is unprofessional...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would be downright appalled if Rust were to start promoting exceptions. It's an anti-feature.
Being this emotionally invested in a feature, really is unprofessional...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would be downright appalled if Rust were to start promoting exceptions. It's an anti-feature.
Being this emotionally invested in a feature, really is unprofessional...
I want to believe. I love Rust. I feel like Rust is the language I've waited for all my life. Yesterday there was a story about Rust here on HN: "Programming ARM Cortex-M Microcontrollers with Rust." Among the replies was a complaint; someone couldn't figure out how to write a static buffer and was discouraged. Someone else provided an example of how to do this. Finally, another person noted how unfortunate the solut…
Unfortunately, the reason that's a problem is because most management doesn't even know what it means. And that's not likely to change.
So saying "We have a language that might take a bit longer but solves X" is a difficult conversation when the reply is "Wait, what is X?"
I had great hopes for Rust as the future of systems programming, but they've decreased over time. Parts of the language are just too cute. The borrow checker was brilliant. Any future language that doesn't use garbage collection will have to have one. That was the big advance in Rust. But the object system (yeah, they're called structures and traits) is too weird. The enum approach to variant records is too weird. Th…
Case in point, in the Ion shell that I am working on, I have a shell expansion module within that takes a structure containing closures that are used to grab and expand array variables, string variables, tilde variables, and process expansions.
Because of this, the module can live as an entirely separate piece of software with no dependency on the specifics of Ion, and I can write reduced unit tests that extensively test every component. I could strip it out of Ion and use it with a completely different shell project. That shell would just have to provide the batteries (closures) that define what to do with certain tokens.
I had great hopes for Rust as the future of systems programming, but they've decreased over time. Parts of the language are just too cute. The borrow checker was brilliant. Any future language that doesn't use garbage collection will have to have one. That was the big advance in Rust. But the object system (yeah, they're called structures and traits) is too weird. The enum approach to variant records is too weird. Th…
This is like reading criticism of Erlang which we use. A bunch of people (the vast majority of which never shipped anything in it) have plenty of arguments against it, those of us that actually use it love it to bits. Rust is productive, efficient and a joy to use. For things we required C/C++ before, we will be using Rust now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because "addressing" the concerns would make Rust a worse language. 1. Removing structs and interfaces (in favor of what? Java-style classes and interfaces?) would make Rust more verbose, less of a systems language, and slower at runtime due to the indirect dispatch. 2. Changing the keyword "enum" to something else is a cosmetic change which would make as many users unhappy as it made happy. (We know, because we soli…
I didn't suggest changing the Rust language. There are other ways to address concerns than by saying "you're wrong," which is effectively what your comment did.
The Rust ecosystem has lost sight of the forest for the trees in my opinion. I highly agree with Graydon's opinion in "Rust is mostly safety" [1] that it's raison d'être is memory safety and concurrency in the systems space. But strangely a significant amount of time is being put in to making it usable for other tasks. I think this has to do with the different cultures between C/C++ developers versus other developers…
Web developers have zero issues with using Rust for web development though. The Rocket web framework is rather intuitive. I even built my website entirely in Rust with it. http://mmstick.tk