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

Rust for the Web

thefullsnack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 100 posts

Re: Rust for the Web

#31

Post by pcwalton »

haskellandchill wrote: post #24
pankajdoharey wrote: post #19

Man Rust is super hard already! I mean people told me it would be harder to think functionally but after clojure, i think lisps are super easy. But i feel Rust is way harder than anything. Infact i feel Haskell is comparatively easier than Rust. So i am not sure why one wants to use it for web. I think Rust has a place and that is to replace C++ for system software, possibly even C for writing Kernels because why not…

Haskell has more concepts than Rust (like higher kinder types) and should get linear types soon. Rust seems like Go with some Java and the great borrow checking system.

Associated types put Rust beyond Java and far beyond Go in terms of type system features, even without counting anything lifetime-related.

Re: Rust for the Web

#32

Post by yen223 »

pcwalton wrote: post #30
pankajdoharey wrote: post #19

Man Rust is super hard already! I mean people told me it would be harder to think functionally but after clojure, i think lisps are super easy. But i feel Rust is way harder than anything. Infact i feel Haskell is comparatively easier than Rust. So i am not sure why one wants to use it for web. I think Rust has a place and that is to replace C++ for system software, possibly even C for writing Kernels because why not…

I'm using Rust/Rocket for Web apps and I'm as productive with that stack as I would be with, say, Go or Python/Flask. I'm more productive with Rust than I would be in Java. Programmers generally write the same amount of code (measured in LOC) per day regardless of the language, and Rust is pretty succinct. That said, I suspect if you want the absolute fastest development time, Rails and full-stack frameworks like it…

To be fair, you might be a little bit biased ;)

Re: Rust for the Web

#33

Post by dgsb »

pcwalton wrote: post #30
pankajdoharey wrote: post #19

Man Rust is super hard already! I mean people told me it would be harder to think functionally but after clojure, i think lisps are super easy. But i feel Rust is way harder than anything. Infact i feel Haskell is comparatively easier than Rust. So i am not sure why one wants to use it for web. I think Rust has a place and that is to replace C++ for system software, possibly even C for writing Kernels because why not…

I'm using Rust/Rocket for Web apps and I'm as productive with that stack as I would be with, say, Go or Python/Flask. I'm more productive with Rust than I would be in Java. Programmers generally write the same amount of code (measured in LOC) per day regardless of the language, and Rust is pretty succinct. That said, I suspect if you want the absolute fastest development time, Rails and full-stack frameworks like it…

What makes you think software developers write the same average amount of lines of code per day ? It seems to me the higher level the language is, higher is the average number of loc per day. IHMO Debugging has an huge impact on this average and lower level languages are harder to debug.

Re: Rust for the Web

#34

Post by moomin »

haskellandchill wrote: post #24
pankajdoharey wrote: post #19

Man Rust is super hard already! I mean people told me it would be harder to think functionally but after clojure, i think lisps are super easy. But i feel Rust is way harder than anything. Infact i feel Haskell is comparatively easier than Rust. So i am not sure why one wants to use it for web. I think Rust has a place and that is to replace C++ for system software, possibly even C for writing Kernels because why not…

Haskell has more concepts than Rust (like higher kinder types) and should get linear types soon. Rust seems like Go with some Java and the great borrow checking system.

With the best will in the world, linear types are still going to take some serious work. Look at the guy doing a linear type streaming library.

And that's just at the language level. You then need pervasive library support. And then you need more GHC work on optimisation, work out how you interoperate with levity polymorphism and so on and so on.

And _after_ all this work is done, I seriously doubt you'll be able to control memory usage as well as Rust does now.

I love Haskell to bits, but there's no way it's going to beat Rust at what Rust's good at for a long time to come.

Re: Rust for the Web

#35

Post by mathw »

ricardobeat wrote: post #27
RussianCow wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could be , hypothetically, but the description and example given don't do that.

See the first section on 'stdweb', and check the Github repo linked - the code is all there for DOM manipulation in the browser. EDIT: what is going on here with the downvotes? Care to explain?

The author's "isomorphic" application is only stated as being the third section, where they're just rendering templates on the server side, and there's no client-side Rust at all.

Re: Rust for the Web

#36

Post by PascalW »

modalduality wrote: post #5

Web developers may be also interested in https://gotham.rs/ , which was released very recently and looks to be a promising competitor to Rocket.

Great to see a few new web frameworks popping up.

It seems that the older frameworks like Iron and Nickel.rs are not (yet) catching the async train.

Re: Rust for the Web

#37

Post by mathw »

pankajdoharey wrote: post #19

Man Rust is super hard already! I mean people told me it would be harder to think functionally but after clojure, i think lisps are super easy. But i feel Rust is way harder than anything. Infact i feel Haskell is comparatively easier than Rust. So i am not sure why one wants to use it for web. I think Rust has a place and that is to replace C++ for system software, possibly even C for writing Kernels because why not…

I disagree. I think Rust is pretty easy once you've spent a bit of time learning about lifetimes.

It should be substantially less surprising when it's got non-lexical lifetimes, though.

Rust seems to me eminently suited to write high-performance web applications.

Re: Rust for the Web

#38

Post by pankajdoharey »

pcwalton wrote: post #30
pankajdoharey wrote: post #19

Man Rust is super hard already! I mean people told me it would be harder to think functionally but after clojure, i think lisps are super easy. But i feel Rust is way harder than anything. Infact i feel Haskell is comparatively easier than Rust. So i am not sure why one wants to use it for web. I think Rust has a place and that is to replace C++ for system software, possibly even C for writing Kernels because why not…

I'm using Rust/Rocket for Web apps and I'm as productive with that stack as I would be with, say, Go or Python/Flask. I'm more productive with Rust than I would be in Java. Programmers generally write the same amount of code (measured in LOC) per day regardless of the language, and Rust is pretty succinct. That said, I suspect if you want the absolute fastest development time, Rails and full-stack frameworks like it…

The compile time guarantees that Rust provides are good for web server code not a web app. This responsibly should and must be shifted to the people writing web server code not web applications. There are many nuances with rust and it is a hard language to use and learn, when libraries which you want to use dont compile, or your code than doesn't compile for 100 reasons. I get it, it is a great language, but only for Computer Scientists. For average WebDevelopers it may not be that useful to write web apps with compile time guarantees on memory safety.

Re: Rust for the Web

#39

Post by pcwalton »

dgsb wrote: post #33
pcwalton wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm using Rust/Rocket for Web apps and I'm as productive with that stack as I would be with, say, Go or Python/Flask. I'm more productive with Rust than I would be in Java. Programmers generally write the same amount of code (measured in LOC) per day regardless of the language, and Rust is pretty succinct. That said, I suspect if you want the absolute fastest development time, Rails and full-stack frameworks like it…

What makes you think software developers write the same average amount of lines of code per day ? It seems to me the higher level the language is, higher is the average number of loc per day. IHMO Debugging has an huge impact on this average and lower level languages are harder to debug.

I have not found Rust any harder to debug than, say, Python. LLDB works fine.

Re: Rust for the Web

#40

Post by pcwalton »

pankajdoharey wrote: post #38
pcwalton wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm using Rust/Rocket for Web apps and I'm as productive with that stack as I would be with, say, Go or Python/Flask. I'm more productive with Rust than I would be in Java. Programmers generally write the same amount of code (measured in LOC) per day regardless of the language, and Rust is pretty succinct. That said, I suspect if you want the absolute fastest development time, Rails and full-stack frameworks like it…

The compile time guarantees that Rust provides are good for web server code not a web app. This responsibly should and must be shifted to the people writing web server code not web applications. There are many nuances with rust and it is a hard language to use and learn, when libraries which you want to use dont compile, or your code than doesn't compile for 100 reasons. I get it, it is a great language, but only for…

Speaking as an engineer who (maybe surprisingly) isn't particularly interested in type theory for its own sake, I like the fact that Rust has an expressive type/macro system and an ecosystem that takes advantage of it, yet compiles to native binaries. The low-level memory management isn't much of a problem for me since I've internalized the rules, and the same system prevents nasty problems like data races.

Of course, different tools work well for different projects and different people's styles. If you needed me to write a CRUD Web app as quickly as possible I'd probably use Rails. After learning Rust and working with Rocket, though, I think most programmers will find the development experience enjoyable for lots of Web apps. I was pleasantly surprised at how elegant Rocket is.

Post reply on HN