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

A Gentle Introduction to Rust

stevedonovan.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 60 posts

Re: A Gentle Introduction to Rust

#51

Post by LandR »

Retra wrote: post #48
LandR wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At my university course, we did C in the first year for all programming courses. THen onto C++ in year 2 onwards, but all the fundamentals were in C. Now that same course goes straight to Java as the introductory language, alongside html / css and javascript. Now any sort of low(er) level language is avoid until year 2 when they do a course on C / C++ Which seems ass backwards to me. I also see some developers come i…

Arguably, school curricula are driven by the industry's needs. People keep asking for Java and Javascript developers, so that's what they have students learn.

I guess my response to that would be, if you just go straight into Java then OK, you've made some Java developers... I think they will be poor developers who happen to know Java.

But if you teach them fundamentals of structuring software, compiler theory, how it all works at a lower level etc. Then teach them Java, you will have good developers, who also happen to know Java.

Re: A Gentle Introduction to Rust

#52

Post by pjmlp »

RazrFalcon wrote: post #49
pjmlp wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not from technical perfection point of view, but it is much easier to improve existing codebases than just rewriting the world. One of the things Rust should focus on as productivity improvement is making that migration as easy as possible. Right now I cannot justify from business perspective replacing C++ with Rust on the workflows we still use C++ for.

I'm not saying that you should ditch an existing C++ project. But it doesn't mean that C++ as good as Rust. It's just wrong.

A programming language is not just a grammar and semantics.

The whole eco-system and community around a language is what defines it.

To give a more explicit example, until it reaches parity with C++ on .NET/UWP tooling, it just means less productivity in spite of being a technically better and safer language.

Re: A Gentle Introduction to Rust

#53

Post by banachtarski »

MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #30
banachtarski wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, it feels like Rust really only has value to people who aren't already using C++14/17. The incremental benefit in certain areas is small, and it steps backwards in other areas.

Maybe I'm living in a special kind of bubble, but I have yet to meet a C++ programmer IRL who doesn't hate it.

There are dozens of us. Dozens! You need to search for programmers that have problems in the microsecond to millisecond scale.

Re: A Gentle Introduction to Rust

#54

Post by banachtarski »

exceptione wrote: post #28
banachtarski wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, it feels like Rust really only has value to people who aren't already using C++14/17. The incremental benefit in certain areas is small, and it steps backwards in other areas.

«The incremental benefit in certain areas is small, and it steps backwards in other areas.» As someone who doesn't know about C++ and Rust, can you elaborate on that?

I write multithreaded code all the time. I simply do not encounter the amount of "pain" that is touted as the reason things like the borrow checker need to exist. Generally, you write abstractions around synchronization and asynchronous dispatch and then just use them. C++ works on platforms like PS4, mobile devices, embedded, and more already with good support from vendor toolchains. If I use Rust, I have to use all these wrapping libraries or write my own. Yea the syntax can be pretty in some ways, but I already have structured bindings in C++17 and a whole bunch of other things I can do.

Re: A Gentle Introduction to Rust

#55

Post by steveklabnik »

banachtarski wrote: post #54
exceptione wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

«The incremental benefit in certain areas is small, and it steps backwards in other areas.» As someone who doesn't know about C++ and Rust, can you elaborate on that?

I write multithreaded code all the time. I simply do not encounter the amount of "pain" that is touted as the reason things like the borrow checker need to exist. Generally, you write abstractions around synchronization and asynchronous dispatch and then just use them. C++ works on platforms like PS4, mobile devices, embedded, and more already with good support from vendor toolchains. If I use Rust, I have to use all…

Rust does work on game consoles, embedded platforms, mobile, and more as well.

That said, you should use tech that you’re happy with.

Re: A Gentle Introduction to Rust

#56

Post by banachtarski »

steveklabnik wrote: post #55
banachtarski wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I write multithreaded code all the time. I simply do not encounter the amount of "pain" that is touted as the reason things like the borrow checker need to exist. Generally, you write abstractions around synchronization and asynchronous dispatch and then just use them. C++ works on platforms like PS4, mobile devices, embedded, and more already with good support from vendor toolchains. If I use Rust, I have to use all…

Rust does work on game consoles, embedded platforms, mobile, and more as well. That said, you should use tech that you’re happy with.

Yea I realize it compiles to LLVM and this can technically target anything. It's the toolchain, profiler, and debugger maturity that worries me.

> That said, you should use tech that you're happy with

Yea this summarizes what I was going for originally. Newcomers may benefit more learning Rust (I don't actually know this for sure).

Re: A Gentle Introduction to Rust

#57

Post by steveklabnik »

banachtarski wrote: post #56
steveklabnik wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rust does work on game consoles, embedded platforms, mobile, and more as well. That said, you should use tech that you’re happy with.

Yea I realize it compiles to LLVM and this can technically target anything. It's the toolchain, profiler, and debugger maturity that worries me. > That said, you should use tech that you're happy with Yea this summarizes what I was going for originally. Newcomers may benefit more learning Rust (I don't actually know this for sure).

Yeah, we’ll see. Chucklefish, as far as I know, has been happy. I did a presentation at an Activision studio yesterday. We’ll see!

Re: A Gentle Introduction to Rust

#59

Post by Ygg2 »

pjmlp wrote: post #46
Ygg2 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say what you want about C, but at least it doesn't require reading several LotR length books, to be up to date with all the stuff. Sadly, Rust, seems to be getting a few tomes of its own as well :P

Actually it does, for anyone that cares about how to write portable and safe code in C. There is this myth that C is a simple language, when devs stick to a single OS/compiler combo.

C is a simple language. It has order of magnitude less concepts than C++. It's application is complex.

In same way Lisp is a simple language, but its application can be just as complex.

Post reply on HN