Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Will Rust ever become a mainstream systems programming language?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 291 posts

Re: Ask HN: Will Rust ever become a mainstream systems programming language?

#271

Post by Rusky »

mmstick wrote: post #269
Rusky wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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). In fact it went relatively smoothly for me as well. The point is claiming it's easy dismisses the very real obstacles that exist for others, and does worse than nothing at convincing people…

I had zero issues learning and then creating software with Rust shortly thereafter. In fact, we even have recent threads in the Rust user's forum from people that have picked up Rust and already have some software solutions implemented it on day one. To claim otherwise is just denial.

Good thing nobody's claiming otherwise, then. Quit trolling (or, on the off chance you're sincere, learn some basic logic).

Re: Ask HN: Will Rust ever become a mainstream systems programming language?

#272

Post by mmstick »

Rusky wrote: post #221
mmstick wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Type restrictions aren't really a problem, but in fact really helps out game development in the long run. > Memory safety is not a problem in game development, they will just patch the bugs. You must not have played any Bethesda titles. That said, there is much more to Rust than memory safety. That's just a side effect of the safe parallelism -- it's a minor story.

This is nonsense. I would love to use Rust in games (I currently work in games) but it's not clear that it would work out. That opinion is shared by game developers far more experienced and prominent than myself. I (and I presume many others) would appreciate it if you would stop making grand, unfounded assertions about what Rust is good for. Games do make very different tradeoffs from most software- type and memory…

There's already a few games written in Rust on Steam's Greenlight program. SHAR was even greenlit. Stating that it isn't clear that it would work out is basically stating that you are choosing to ignore that it has and is being done successfully.

> stop making grand, unfounded assertions about what Rust is good for

You are basically stating that everything that I have done in Rust is a lie. I will not stand for that.

Re: Ask HN: Will Rust ever become a mainstream systems programming language?

#273

Post by mmstick »

lossolo wrote: post #209
mmstick wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Type restrictions aren't really a problem, but in fact really helps out game development in the long run. > Memory safety is not a problem in game development, they will just patch the bugs. You must not have played any Bethesda titles. That said, there is much more to Rust than memory safety. That's just a side effect of the safe parallelism -- it's a minor story.

> Type restrictions aren't really a problem Did you ever seen AAA game source code? > You must not have played any Bethesda titles. I've played. Most bugs I've seen were logic errors, doesn't matter which language you would pick.

This is just outright denial. Bethesda titles are rife with segmentation fault galore. Even their most recent titles suffer the same terrible CTDs as all of their previous titles.

Re: Ask HN: Will Rust ever become a mainstream systems programming language?

#274

Post by mmstick »

Rusky wrote: post #212
mmstick wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the same line of logic and statements repeated by C and C++ programmers that shortly thereafter get showed up with a list of CVEs in their 'modern C/C++' projects. Remember the recent Curl developer PR disaster?

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 certainly improved in making certain mistakes easier to avoid. Now, I come down on the Rust side for many situations, but making unsubstantiated claims about your language of choice is exactly the problem peopl…

You've living in some serious denial. You were given a point that proves that your line of thought is incorrect, and you continue on to completely ignore that point by stating that it is correct. So tell us, o'wise one, why is that top C and C++ projects are continually riddled with CVEs, crashes, and other severe issues that are 90+% the fault of C and C++? Why is it that veteran, experienced C/C++ programmers are still making these same mistakes 20, 30, and even 40 years into their careers?

Re: Ask HN: Will Rust ever become a mainstream systems programming language?

#275

Post by mmstick »

lossolo wrote: post #220
mmstick wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google and Microsoft are using it.

You have any sources to support that claim? Where do they use it? In their infrastructure?

Just check out Google's GitHub repository.

Re: Ask HN: Will Rust ever become a mainstream systems programming language?

#276

Post by mmstick »

Rusky wrote: post #271
mmstick wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had zero issues learning and then creating software with Rust shortly thereafter. In fact, we even have recent threads in the Rust user's forum from people that have picked up Rust and already have some software solutions implemented it on day one. To claim otherwise is just denial.

Good thing nobody's claiming otherwise, then. Quit trolling (or, on the off chance you're sincere, learn some basic logic).

Seems you need to learn what trolling and logic are before using those terms.

Re: Ask HN: Will Rust ever become a mainstream systems programming language?

#277

Post by kbenson »

lossolo wrote: post #114
pcwalton wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Create language like Rust with D like syntax, no GC, no additional indirection, RAII, less strict rules or possibility to turn off some of them and I am sold. I think that language will end up looking a lot more like Rust than you think. You can't just compare a language that wasn't designed for zero-cost memory safety to one that was, as if the zero-cost memory safety features have no learning curve.

> I think that language will end up looking a lot more like Rust than you think. I disagree, I think you could pick different way based on Cyclone coupling with some modern static analysis techniques, it would not have so many features as Rust have but it would be less invasive and more "C/D'ish".

> and more "C/D'ish"

This I think is where a lot of the pushback comes from. People say want a new C replacement, but some portion of them look at what that actually means, and find they actually want C with a new feature or two because actually learning something new, even new looking, is work. Rust is not C or C++ with a few new features, it's a new language, and some people really want that, and some people are put off by how different it is.

It's perfectly fine for people to have a preference, but people should be aware of what it is - a preference. It's not some inviolate law that C's syntax and way of doing things is good, and we should make sure a successor follows that. It's importance to distinguish the familiar from the good. C has a huge advantage in that it's familiar, through it's own popularity and history and in those languages that it influenced. That doesn't mean it's inherently better though.

Re: Ask HN: Will Rust ever become a mainstream systems programming language?

#278

Post by kbenson »

flukus wrote: post #187
mmstick wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the same line of logic and statements repeated by C and C++ programmers that shortly thereafter get showed up with a list of CVEs in their 'modern C/C++' projects. Remember the recent Curl developer PR disaster?

I think it's too early to tell if rust will prove any better in the real world, which includes things like devs using unsafe sections to cope with time pressures.

The question then is whether large chunks in unsafe is still better than the entire program in the equivalent of unsafe (C).

Re: Ask HN: Will Rust ever become a mainstream systems programming language?

#279

Post by Rusky »

mmstick wrote: post #272
Rusky wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is nonsense. I would love to use Rust in games (I currently work in games) but it's not clear that it would work out. That opinion is shared by game developers far more experienced and prominent than myself. I (and I presume many others) would appreciate it if you would stop making grand, unfounded assertions about what Rust is good for. Games do make very different tradeoffs from most software- type and memory…

There's already a few games written in Rust on Steam's Greenlight program. SHAR was even greenlit. Stating that it isn't clear that it would work out is basically stating that you are choosing to ignore that it has and is being done successfully. > stop making grand, unfounded assertions about what Rust is good for You are basically stating that everything that I have done in Rust is a lie. I will not stand for that.

There are vast gulfs between Steam Greenlight candidates and AAA.

Nobody here, least of all me, has claimed that Rust cannot be used for any game at all, nor have they disputed your own experiences. Grow up.

Re: Ask HN: Will Rust ever become a mainstream systems programming language?

#280

Post by Corrado »

My feeling is that Rust (and/or Go) will probably supplant Java (and/or C#) in the coming age, just on the basis of the user experience alone. This past week I wasted several hours trying, and failing, to get a simple Java app up and running. Rust (and Go) have such a better end user experience that I can't see them not winning. Firing up a single executable is miles better than installing a run time, then tweaking the config to make it work, then trying to find out where it stores log files, then tweaking it again when it fills up memory, etc.

Give me a single, self contained, executable any day!

Post reply on HN