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

Switching from C++ to Rust

laplab.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 289 posts

Re: Switching from C++ to Rust

#41

Post by f_devd »

girvo wrote: post #37
f_devd wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Esp-rs has come a long way although it's still very much in a beta phase.

Ah I was writing a reply to someone else as you commented this :) We've got experimental projects with some ports of our firmware to it already, but there are lots of showstoppers that we've run into (some of which are ESP-IDF's fault more-so than esp-rs directly). In the medium-to-long-term, I'm really hopeful we can move to it. Not quite there yet for our production use cases though unfortunately.

If the lack of some services allows it (maybe not given the chip, but it was enough for me) I recommend using esp-hal+esp-wifi rather than esp-idf-hal, it is a pure rust 'rewrite' and it's been a great experience compared to esp-idf(c++). Default is bare-metal but embassy resolves most of the need of an rtos.

Re: Switching from C++ to Rust

#43

Post by loeg »

burntsushi wrote: post #3

The call out to sum types is something I feel. I've been using Rust daily for almost 10 years now, and sum types are absolutely still one of the things I love most about it. It's easily one of the things I miss the most in other languages that don't have them. I'm usually a proponent of "using languages as they're intended," but I missed exhaustiveness checking so much that I ported a version of it to Go[1] as a sort…

Yeah. In the C++ codebase I work on, we use folly::Expected (essentially similar to Rust's Result) heavily. Is it as ergonomic as Result is in Rust? Absolutely not. But it's still a nice design pattern for some of the same reasons people use Result in Rust.

(And C++ std::optional is somewhat similar to Rust's Option type.)

https://github.com/facebook/folly/blob/main/folly/Expected.h...

Re: Switching from C++ to Rust

#44

Post by cornstalks »

zabzonk wrote: post #42
cornstalks wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The union part is just an (obvious) optimization. An implementation detail. Sum types are not required to use a union; they can be implemented without using a union.

how, exactly?

By using a struct with lazily initialized members, for example.

Re: Switching from C++ to Rust

#45

Post by raincole »

burntsushi wrote: post #3

The call out to sum types is something I feel. I've been using Rust daily for almost 10 years now, and sum types are absolutely still one of the things I love most about it. It's easily one of the things I miss the most in other languages that don't have them. I'm usually a proponent of "using languages as they're intended," but I missed exhaustiveness checking so much that I ported a version of it to Go[1] as a sort…

> I've been using Rust daily for almost 10 years now,

I'm just nitpicking but Rust is 7 years old and 7 doesn't feel almost 10...

Edit: Rust hit 1.0 7 years ago. Now I feel silly.

Re: Switching from C++ to Rust

#46

Post by nicoburns »

zabzonk wrote: post #19
burntsushi wrote: post #3

The call out to sum types is something I feel. I've been using Rust daily for almost 10 years now, and sum types are absolutely still one of the things I love most about it. It's easily one of the things I miss the most in other languages that don't have them. I'm usually a proponent of "using languages as they're intended," but I missed exhaustiveness checking so much that I ported a version of it to Go[1] as a sort…

so, um, unions? i have to say that in many years of programming, i have almost never needed to use such types.

Does your code ever contain class hierarchies with a fixed set of classes? Or variables where certain values have special case meaning? Those are the cases where Sum Types make things immeasurably nicer than the alternatives.

Re: Switching from C++ to Rust

#47

Post by capableweb »

raincole wrote: post #45
burntsushi wrote: post #3

The call out to sum types is something I feel. I've been using Rust daily for almost 10 years now, and sum types are absolutely still one of the things I love most about it. It's easily one of the things I miss the most in other languages that don't have them. I'm usually a proponent of "using languages as they're intended," but I missed exhaustiveness checking so much that I ported a version of it to Go[1] as a sort…

> I've been using Rust daily for almost 10 years now, I'm just nitpicking but Rust is 7 years old and 7 doesn't feel almost 10... Edit: Rust hit 1.0 7 years ago. Now I feel silly.

Rust was initially created in 2006. Mozilla started sponsoring Rust in 2009. Maybe you're talking about the first stable release, which happened in 2015? Rust has been around for longer than the first stable release though.

First spike at Google Trends for "Rust (Programming Language)" happened back in late 2013/early 2014 (https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%2Fm%2F0...) so not at all impossible for someone to have ~10 years experience with it. Although that's probably pretty uncommon.

As a bonus, here is a very old (by internet time standards) HN submission titled "Mozilla releases version 0.1 of the Rust programming language (mail.mozilla.org)" - 236 points | Jan 23, 2012 | 82 comments - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3501980

Re: Switching from C++ to Rust

#48

Post by howinteresting »

raincole wrote: post #45
burntsushi wrote: post #3

The call out to sum types is something I feel. I've been using Rust daily for almost 10 years now, and sum types are absolutely still one of the things I love most about it. It's easily one of the things I miss the most in other languages that don't have them. I'm usually a proponent of "using languages as they're intended," but I missed exhaustiveness checking so much that I ported a version of it to Go[1] as a sort…

> I've been using Rust daily for almost 10 years now, I'm just nitpicking but Rust is 7 years old and 7 doesn't feel almost 10... Edit: Rust hit 1.0 7 years ago. Now I feel silly.

BurntSushi has been using Rust since before 1.0.

Re: Switching from C++ to Rust

#49

Post by cmrdporcupine »

loeg wrote: post #43
burntsushi wrote: post #3

The call out to sum types is something I feel. I've been using Rust daily for almost 10 years now, and sum types are absolutely still one of the things I love most about it. It's easily one of the things I miss the most in other languages that don't have them. I'm usually a proponent of "using languages as they're intended," but I missed exhaustiveness checking so much that I ported a version of it to Go[1] as a sort…

Yeah. In the C++ codebase I work on, we use folly::Expected (essentially similar to Rust's Result ) heavily. Is it as ergonomic as Result is in Rust? Absolutely not. But it's still a nice design pattern for some of the same reasons people use Result in Rust. (And C++ std::optional is somewhat similar to Rust's Option type.) https://github.com/facebook/folly/blob/main/folly/Expected.h...

Sounds like Google/abseil's "StatusOr', but maybe a bit more freefrom?

https://abseil.io/docs/cpp/guides/status

Re: Switching from C++ to Rust

#50

Post by nicoburns »

raincole wrote: post #45
burntsushi wrote: post #3

The call out to sum types is something I feel. I've been using Rust daily for almost 10 years now, and sum types are absolutely still one of the things I love most about it. It's easily one of the things I miss the most in other languages that don't have them. I'm usually a proponent of "using languages as they're intended," but I missed exhaustiveness checking so much that I ported a version of it to Go[1] as a sort…

> I've been using Rust daily for almost 10 years now, I'm just nitpicking but Rust is 7 years old and 7 doesn't feel almost 10... Edit: Rust hit 1.0 7 years ago. Now I feel silly.

Rust hit 1.0 is 7 years ago. But burntsushi has been using Rust since before it hit 1.0
Post reply on HN