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

Was Rust Worth It?

jsoverson.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 736 posts

Re: Was Rust Worth It?

#511

Post by PoignardAzur »

adastra22 wrote: post #40
tantalor wrote: post #19

> I started writing tests in Rust as I would in any other language but found that I was writing tests couldn’t fail. This is a common refrain in C++ testing: if it compiles then it's probably correct. > Rust has accounted for so many errors that many common test cases become irrelevant In practice, if you think this way I think it's a sign that you aren't testing the right things in those other languages. You should…

> This is a common refrain in C++ testing: if it compiles then it's probably correct. I’ve heard this in Haskell and in Rust. I’ve never heard it applied to C++…

I've experienced it a bit in C++, especially after coming back from JS. But not to the degree of Rust.

Re: Was Rust Worth It?

#512

Post by flohofwoe »

api wrote: post #487
ernst_klim wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. I feel far more productive in C and C++ than in Rust at that point. Rust feels like totally missing the sweet spot for me. It's way too pedantic about low level stuff for writing higher level applications, but way too complicated for embedded or writing an OS. In the former case I would rather take a C++, Java, Haskell, OCaml or even Go, and maybe sprinkle some C, and in the latter case C in macroassembly mo…

The problem with C and to C++ is that it’s 2023 and the CVE list is still loaded with basic memory errors. These come from everywhere too: small companies and open source all the way up to Apple, Microsoft, and Google. We as a profession have proven that we can’t write unsafe code at scale and avoid these problems. You might be able to in hand whittled code you write but what happens when other people work on it, it…

I think nobody is arguing the need for static memory safety, just that the poor Rust ergonomics aren't a good tradeoff, especially for scenarios where C is useful. We need many more Rust alternatives that explore into different directions, Rust is already too big and "established" for any radical changes in direction.

Re: Was Rust Worth It?

#513

Post by pjmlp »

api wrote: post #487
ernst_klim wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. I feel far more productive in C and C++ than in Rust at that point. Rust feels like totally missing the sweet spot for me. It's way too pedantic about low level stuff for writing higher level applications, but way too complicated for embedded or writing an OS. In the former case I would rather take a C++, Java, Haskell, OCaml or even Go, and maybe sprinkle some C, and in the latter case C in macroassembly mo…

The problem with C and to C++ is that it’s 2023 and the CVE list is still loaded with basic memory errors. These come from everywhere too: small companies and open source all the way up to Apple, Microsoft, and Google. We as a profession have proven that we can’t write unsafe code at scale and avoid these problems. You might be able to in hand whittled code you write but what happens when other people work on it, it…

It is, however those same companies aren't dialing full safe ahead knob either, hence why Microsoft just recently published a set of secure coding guidelines for C and C++.

https://devblogs.microsoft.com/cppblog/build-reliable-and-se...

Re: Was Rust Worth It?

#514

Post by pjmlp »

flohofwoe wrote: post #512
api wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with C and to C++ is that it’s 2023 and the CVE list is still loaded with basic memory errors. These come from everywhere too: small companies and open source all the way up to Apple, Microsoft, and Google. We as a profession have proven that we can’t write unsafe code at scale and avoid these problems. You might be able to in hand whittled code you write but what happens when other people work on it, it…

I think nobody is arguing the need for static memory safety, just that the poor Rust ergonomics aren't a good tradeoff, especially for scenarios where C is useful. We need many more Rust alternatives that explore into different directions, Rust is already too big and "established" for any radical changes in direction.

On that regard, by packaging Modula-2 into a C friendly syntax, I do agree Zig is relatively interesting option, however not having a story for binary library distribution is an hindrance in many C dominated industries.

Re: Was Rust Worth It?

#515

Post by 0xfedbee »

ostenning wrote: post #364
kuon wrote: post #231

I wrote a lot of rust, but after some years it still feels unproductive. I do a lot of zig now and I am like 10 times more productive with it. I can just concentrate on what I want to code and I never have to wonder what tool or what library to use. I know rust gives memory safety and how important that is, but the ergonomic is really bad. Every time I write some rust I feel limited. I always have to search libraries…

Opposite experience for me. Writing Rust on embedded systems greatly improved my confidence and speed. When using C a small mistake often leads to undefined behaviour and headaches. Rust theres none of that - its been a game changer for me.

[dead]

Re: Was Rust Worth It?

#516

Post by pjmlp »

samus wrote: post #377
kuon wrote: post #231

I wrote a lot of rust, but after some years it still feels unproductive. I do a lot of zig now and I am like 10 times more productive with it. I can just concentrate on what I want to code and I never have to wonder what tool or what library to use. I know rust gives memory safety and how important that is, but the ergonomic is really bad. Every time I write some rust I feel limited. I always have to search libraries…

It somehow seems that Zig has most of the qualities that people like about C: clear, crisp, no huge Stdlib, good old straightforward imperative semantics, and readonably fast. But without lots of the cruft.

Unfortunely lacks support for binary libraries, and not yet a story for UAF other than the tooling we are already using in C derived languages to track them down.

Re: Was Rust Worth It?

#518

Post by Liskni_si »

goku12 wrote: post #286
kuon wrote: post #231

I wrote a lot of rust, but after some years it still feels unproductive. I do a lot of zig now and I am like 10 times more productive with it. I can just concentrate on what I want to code and I never have to wonder what tool or what library to use. I know rust gives memory safety and how important that is, but the ergonomic is really bad. Every time I write some rust I feel limited. I always have to search libraries…

> but the ergonomic is really bad. Every time I write some rust I feel limited. > But I do not think it is a good general purpose language. Remember that this is not a sentiment that's shared by everyone. I use Rust for tasks that need anything more complicated than a shell script. Even my window manager is controlled from a Rust program. I say this as someone who has been programming in Python for nearly two decades…

What window manager is that, may I ask out of curiousity?

Re: Was Rust Worth It?

#519

Post by Buttons840 »

pjmlp wrote: post #513
api wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with C and to C++ is that it’s 2023 and the CVE list is still loaded with basic memory errors. These come from everywhere too: small companies and open source all the way up to Apple, Microsoft, and Google. We as a profession have proven that we can’t write unsafe code at scale and avoid these problems. You might be able to in hand whittled code you write but what happens when other people work on it, it…

It is, however those same companies aren't dialing full safe ahead knob either, hence why Microsoft just recently published a set of secure coding guidelines for C and C++. https://devblogs.microsoft.com/cppblog/build-reliable-and-se...

Does it have tooling to enforce those guidelines? If not, how is it better than someone saying "write correct code" and calling it a guideline?

Re: Was Rust Worth It?

#520

Post by MereInterest »

jowea wrote: post #178
MereInterest wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure. Looking through different Rust libraries, I tend to see three different styles, depending on previous programming experience. Each mimics the prior experience, with benefits. * Everything is a struct with concrete types. This is closest to C. It benefits from the improved memory safety, without sacrificing speed. * Everything is a Box >. This is closest to dynamic garbage-collected languages, but with v…

> * Everything is a Box >. This is closest to dynamic garbage-collected languages, but with vastly improved performance. Wait, reference counting everything all the time is faster than normal garbage collection?

Many garbage collectors (e.g. CPython’s) will use reference counting as part of the process. If a reference count hits zero, the object can be destructed, prolonging the time between mark-and-sweep passes.

The performance difference, though, is mainly in switching over to a compiled language in the first place.

Post reply on HN