101–110 of 195 posts
The author seems very anxious because Rust is getting traction and they don't like Rust. They're afraid that one day Rust will become a "monoculture" and everything will be written in it. I like Rust, but I consider this very, very unlikely. Rust has actually brought more choice to the programming language scenario. If we're talking about monoculture, let's talk about C/C++. For decades this was the only viable optio…
I'll bite: What specific parts of rust syntax do people find so ugly? I keep hearing this from decent chunks of people who don't write rust, but the language doesn't seem that far off C to me. It's certainly no haskell.
I say this as a Rust enjoyer, but I think what most people mean when they say this is that there's a lot going on, especially in the function definition syntax. When you start adding in lifetimes and generics with bounds, async, &muts, where clauses... it really does become unreadable. I don't really see a way to fix this without making the syntax even more verbose, or aggressively simplifying the type system to the…
Lifetimes are really ugly. You usually don't need to write them explicitly, but that's not a real excuse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rust is challenging people because it declares several long-inadequate things about C/C++ to be inadequate (security issues, dependency management), and provides alternatives which show that it doesn't have to be like that. The rewrites will inevitably be long and painful. Rewrites always are. But the onus on anti-Rust people is now to demonstrate a better language to rewrite in first, rather than just sitting in the…
This is not meant as a critique of you, but your comment includes a hint of what bothers me with some Rust evangelists. I would call it "slightly entitled over-optimism". I have a C++ service running in production. It's been in production for 10-ish years with minimal updates. It'll probably keep running just fine for the next 10 years. With that in mind, "the onus on anti-Rust people is now to demonstrate a better l…
Is it on a network (or other) security boundary, exposed to attack from the Internet?
Is it deployed on millions of machines worldwide?
_Those_ are the primary targets for replacement, because the networked environment is a very hostile place, and people are fed up with the consequences of that. Regular announcements of "sorry all your private data has been leaked lol". Constant upgrade treadmill to fix the latest CVEs.
(the poster child for this was really Shockwave Flash, later owned by Adobe, which had so many RCE exploits everyone united behind Apple killing it off. Even if this meant obsoleting a whole era of media and games which relied on it. That wasn't rewritten, it was just killed.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I say this as a Rust enjoyer, but I think what most people mean when they say this is that there's a lot going on, especially in the function definition syntax. When you start adding in lifetimes and generics with bounds, async, &muts, where clauses... it really does become unreadable. I don't really see a way to fix this without making the syntax even more verbose, or aggressively simplifying the type system to the…
> colon-colons I prefer "quad-dot". Rolls off the tongue better. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not meant as a critique of you, but your comment includes a hint of what bothers me with some Rust evangelists. I would call it "slightly entitled over-optimism". I have a C++ service running in production. It's been in production for 10-ish years with minimal updates. It'll probably keep running just fine for the next 10 years. With that in mind, "the onus on anti-Rust people is now to demonstrate a better l…
> I have a C++ service running in production Is it on a network (or other) security boundary, exposed to attack from the Internet? Is it deployed on millions of machines worldwide? _Those_ are the primary targets for replacement, because the networked environment is a very hostile place, and people are fed up with the consequences of that. Regular announcements of "sorry all your private data has been leaked lol". Co…
I agree with you that if ha-proxy and nginx didn't exist yet, they would be prime candidates for being implemented in Rust. But now that they already exist and reliably work, I'm not sure there is enough pain for them to get replaced anytime soon. BTW the last ha-proxy CVE was them differing from the HTTP spec and accepting the # character in additional URL components, which is something that probably no compiler could have flagged.
The post is a bit of a rant and all over the place. Async infecting everything, ugly syntax (who cares?), slow compile times etc. What stood out to me: > In other words, if compilation is fast, the tooling is easy. Andrew Kelley said something similar in a recent talk. Compiler performance seems to be the number one priority at the moment for Zig. The rationale seems to be: fast compilation leads to more productivity…
Sure, but add LLVM to the mix and you get a slow ass compilation time even in Zig (See Zig filing divorce from LLVM https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/16270). Granted, LLVM isn't the only thing to blame. Rust has its own share of problems stemming from monomorphisation, and macros, type check seems to be not as big of a culprit. Although, that depends on the project.
Being fast to compile, versus being efficient to optimize seems to be the trade-off here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m super into elixir now and don’t see myself going anywhere else. Is gleam really that good? What are the advantages? Can I use liveview with it?
As far as I know Gleam is the only strongly typed language on BEAM, which is important to me since I don't like dynamically typed languages. But of course Elixir gets optional types now.
My personal take on this subject is that Rust turns experts back into beginners and some devs react with hatred because of the fear this induces. For me it was the opposite. I was getting bored with my industry and thinking of a move to something else like management. Rust came along 6 yeas ago (for me) and threw me a lifeline. I love getting good at something that is hard, it’s just very satisfying. I do get why som…
You could have spend that time learning something which is actually useful and helps finding interesting jobs. For example, GPU programming or SIMD intrinsics. What annoys me about rust is the complexity just for the sake of it, lots of pain for minimal gain compared to alternatives. If you need async/await you'll do better in modern .NET despite the GC, if you need the highest CPU performance you'll do better in C++…
These are massive problems
>the syntax. It’s ugly. [...] I would prefer something that is less sigil-heavy. That's also one of my gripes with Rust. Very sigil heavy makes it hard to google syntax elements. What's the name of the `|` glyph? Especially challenging if you know the name of the glyphs in your language but not in necessarily in english. Double challenging for glyphs with several accepted names But in the end, I'm big enough to reali…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_bar
Which lists all the common names used for this symbol
Here is also a table with all symbols with direct links to the wikipedia pages
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s no reason you couldn’t have a rust jit for development then compile the code for production (or stick with a jit for prod too).
There's no reason? Are you sure about this? I think you mean there could theoretically be an interpreted Rust, but I don't think anyone has ever made a prototype of a Rust interpreter. The closest is probably rust-analyzer (the official language server), that maintains internal state and reacts to changes you make, but it doesn't create an executable artifact. The other is probably the Cranelift Backend ( https://git…