This is great news. Microsoft is adopting/forking Rust. That means Rust will be supported for all eternity.
Or at least Microsoft Visual R++
R, perhaps?
Microsoft is creating a new Rust-based programming language for secure coding
161–170 of 207 posts
Re: Microsoft is creating a new Rust-based programming language for secure coding
#162Re: Microsoft is creating a new Rust-based programming language for secure coding
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having rust as the only low level language with ownership concept isn't ideal either.
Not ideal isn't necessarily worse. It is objectively worse for there to be two such languages, one of which is poorly funded and the other funded by Microsoft than have one such language that is cross platform. Also the Java oxygen is sucked out of the room by C#. All the OCaml oxygen is sucked out of the room by F#. A world where all the rust oxygen is sucked out of the room by R# and tied to the windows ecosystem i…
> IronPython, IronRuby
"IronRust" would be amusing
Re: Microsoft is creating a new Rust-based programming language for secure coding
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that is exactly the point. The argument is that if a language is developed/mainly contributed by a single company there is an inherent risk of that language being suddenly discountinued or lacking features that are needed by other people/companies. At least that's how I understand the critics against microsoft in this case.
> lacking features that are needed by other people/companies. Funny how nobody seems to give pile on Google for how it handles Go here...
I am an older fart and my preference for my own products is C/C++/Delphi/FreePascal for servers/desktop and JavaScript for web front. I program in many other languages as well but mostly because clients require them. In the latter case it is a consulting job and the last thing I care about is how their favorite languages are managed. It is their choice and I am here to take their money, not to judge their preferences. Advising client to use particular language instead of their favorites is straight road to disappointment.
Re: Microsoft is creating a new Rust-based programming language for secure coding
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rust’s macro system gives you this already. Is there something you see it not providing that the language you’re imagining would?
Rust's current macro's aren't as powerful as I would like them, and procedural macros are far more difficult and extremely hard to properly develop and debug. The substitution macros aren't that much fun either since they lack certain capabilities (like introducing a new variable into the current scope without having to specify the name redundantly). Without a lot of external libraries, procedural macros are almost i…
rust proc macros are limited because they need to be in a separate crate and syn is also not that much easier to work with, it's too level IMHO
Re: Microsoft is creating a new Rust-based programming language for secure coding
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
D is pretty much the opposite of Go, a pinnacle of feature bloat instead of stripped down simplicity. A C++ killer that turned into a kind of C++ with GC.
Go would be have an interesting language in 1986 [0], or in 1995 [1]. As it stands, it is forced to follow some of Java design mistakes by not integrating modern features and then being forced to actually adopt them in a half-baked way due to market pressure, while striving not to break backwards compatibility with existing code. Modern C++ also uses GC, even it is opt-in. And several modern C++ features actually ori…
> But yeah, it suffers from having a tiny community.
And feature bloat.
Re: Microsoft is creating a new Rust-based programming language for secure coding
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe the next evolution will be to combine Rust and Lisp; a programming language as flexible as LISP without giving up the safety of Rust, including a typesystem that can be entirely coded in the language itself, safely.
> a typesystem that can be entirely coded in the language itself The closest thing to this I can think of is Racket. It's supposedly powerful enough to embed Haskell in it https://lexi-lambda.github.io/hackett/
I would imagine something closer to rust in terms of base and then being able to put Haskell on top without loosing any safety guarantees. Or possibly even allowing an arbitrary type system as long as you can prove it's sound with the guarantees of the language.
Re: Microsoft is creating a new Rust-based programming language for secure coding
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was a medium post about Microsoft's culture and their inability to move on past Gates and Balmer about 6 weeks ago [1]. According to that article you are objectively wrong in saying "it’s safe to say that anyone working there today has nothing to do with the time periods you’re referencing". The article claims that the majority of the power within Microsoft still lays precisely in the hands of people who worked…
I know you referenced that article to prove you point but it ultimately does just as good of job as saying the opposite. One example: "Microsoft is killing it. Revenue is up. Stock is up. Industry stature is up. The places where Microsoft finds itself thriving all have one thing in common: key made-men were pushed aside for better people."
I was contradicting the clearly false claim made by OP, not trying to give the nuanced portrayal from the article. The thesis of the article I posted is that Microsoft continues to be haunted by the vestiges of Gates' and Balmer's influence. I think your cherry picking of a single quote praising some positives the author provides to balance his polemic is purposefully misleading.
The original argument was: "Microsoft still has the elements of its previous bad behaviour in its DNA." The counter claim was: "No one from Microsoft during that time is still in the company". The article clearly supports the first claim and shows the second claim is at its face false. I encourage everyone to read the article and not to take speculations and misleading quotes as support for false ideas.
Re: Microsoft is creating a new Rust-based programming language for secure coding
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know you referenced that article to prove you point but it ultimately does just as good of job as saying the opposite. One example: "Microsoft is killing it. Revenue is up. Stock is up. Industry stature is up. The places where Microsoft finds itself thriving all have one thing in common: key made-men were pushed aside for better people."
I was contradicting the clearly false claim made by OP, not trying to give the nuanced portrayal from the article. The thesis of the article I posted is that Microsoft continues to be haunted by the vestiges of Gates' and Balmer's influence. I think your cherry picking of a single quote praising some positives the author provides to balance his polemic is purposefully misleading. The original argument was: "Microsoft…
Does the fact that some Microsoft employees, even those in positions of influence, remain from that time matter? Does the fact that there are new successful employees, with entirely new ideas about products and management, matter?
The article demonstrates that Microsoft is a complex organization with both good and bad and is changing for the better even if it has a way to go.
Supporting the good and praising Microsoft for what they're doing well is going to make Microsoft better. Crapping on what they're doing well because of actions from 20 years is not rational or helpful.
Re: Microsoft is creating a new Rust-based programming language for secure coding
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious what the next big language iteration will bring. It's been a while that I got excited about a new language, last time was probably C#, but that's 20 years ago... Crazy, that there hasn't been any new language revolution sort of how Java was one. But maybe I should look more into new things like Julia, but they seem a bit niche.
I hope the next big programming language will be one that is split into two language-variants: the "low-level-variant" and the "high-level-variant". The high-level-variant is a dynamic language with optional typing, which is good for scripting, fast prototyping, fast time-to-market, etc. The low-level-variant is similar to the high-level-variant (same syntax, same features mostly, same documentation), but it has no g…
Proponents would say that julia is both languages at the same time