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

I Hope Rust Does Not Oxidize Everything

gavinhoward.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 195 posts

Re: I Hope Rust Does Not Oxidize Everything

#131

Post by nindalf »

amenhotep wrote: post #90

I just cloned the Starship repo and cargo --release built it and it took six minutes and 30 seconds (which did feel interminable). The author says it takes him 15 minutes "for building just the main.rs", 10 minutes for "lib.rs" and an unspecified time for "everything else". My CPU is from 2012 . What on earth is he doing this on, a TI-83? Or am I missing some intricacy of whatever Gentoo is doing that would inherentl…

Just another data point. I cloned and ran `cargo build --release`. It took 2 mins and 2 seconds (M1 Pro, 2021).

Just want to say, creating a release build is really unusual! You'd do that relatively rarely. Most of the time you'd create a debug build, which took 29.56 seconds on my machine for a clean build and 1.45 seconds for an incremental build with one line changed.

I sympathise with the author's running on underpowered hardware, but it might not reflect the experience of the average Rust developer.

Re: I Hope Rust Does Not Oxidize Everything

#132

Post by rascul »

sebstefan wrote: post #41

>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…

This might be useful

https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/tokens.html#punctuation

Re: I Hope Rust Does Not Oxidize Everything

#133

Post by bayindirh »

kosolam wrote: post #129
bayindirh wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People love to think that C++ is only used in systems programming, the thing is C++ is used everywhere . FORTRAN is being developed and improved, and new code, most notably in scientific domain, is still being written. What Rust did to C++ is what clang did to GCC. Wake the giant up. Rust will go nowhere, but it's the same for C++. Thinking that C++ will just fade to black is wishful thinking.

Since C++ still evolves and changes, I guess greenfield C++ projects in the future can limit themselves to a subset of the newer improved language thereby C++ will continue living by that way as well.

C++ already passed that line with C++17 and newer iterations. Not only it evolves way faster starting with C++17, the modern code looks sufficiently different that it needs relearning some parts of C++ from start.

I've written my biggest project with C++11, and C++14 was just out back then. Now, I plan to reimplement that project (and improve it), again with C++, but I need to look at so-called "modern C++" to do it correctly and in a more future-proof way.

...and I'm glad I have to do that, because while I love (old school) C++, seeing it evolve makes me happy. Because systems evolve, software scale evolve, and most importantly hardware and ways to get maximum performance from it evolve.

There's no need to write old-school C++ anymore. All these features are developed for a reason, they shall be used.

Re: I Hope Rust Does Not Oxidize Everything

#134

Post by lynndotpy »

ceronman wrote: post #32

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 would like to echo this sentiment. I like Rust, but I can't see a Rust monoculture.

From my experience, Rust is an absolute improvement in developer experience around so many corners. I'm looking forward to the future where Rust is well established and boring, and all its round edges have been solved, even if that means adopting another new and exciting language :)

Re: I Hope Rust Does Not Oxidize Everything

#135

Post by anonymoushn »

weinzierl wrote: post #66

> First, the syntax. It’s ugly. TO MY EYES! Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, you can't please everyone and you should not exceed your weirdness budget[1]. The decision to please the C++ crowd so much (mainly manifested in later syntax related decisions) would not have been my preference, but it makes sense and there could have been worse decisions. > Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth I feel a lot of this async critic…

> I feel a lot of this async criticism has more to do with how async is used than with Rust itself. Maybe it would be good to have more crates that don't used async or even depend on tokio, but in the end this is on us as a community.

No, this is a language design issue. In Lua or Zig the easy way to write a library that speaks websockets produces a library that works with synchronous or asynchronous i/o and with the user's choice of read and write primitives. In Rust, after many years of unnecessary suffering, we finally have the ability to ship one library that can use either kind of i/o.... unless the user wants to use both in the same workspace, in which case they are screwed. You may enjoy this tale of a user trying to get Rust to do what Lua and Zig do by default, for a single library: https://nullderef.com/blog/rust-async-sync/

Re: I Hope Rust Does Not Oxidize Everything

#136

Post by anonymoushn »

DEADMINCEDOS wrote: post #53
davidhyde wrote: post #24

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…

> 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. Those people are probably poor devs. Anyone who doesn't have the attitude and mindset to continue learning in something like software development which keeps advancing isn't cut out for that field.

Maybe it wouldn't be reasonable to say this about people who dislike programming in Malbolge, and maybe there are aspects of Rust that are more like programming in Malbolge and less like the field advancing.

Re: I Hope Rust Does Not Oxidize Everything

#137

Post by [deleted] »

fxtentacle wrote: post #42
noelwelsh wrote: post #3

Rust is certainly not the last word in systems programming languages, but it's an huge leap forward from C and C++. To be honest, it's a sad reflection of our industry that it's taken this long to get basic safety + ML circa 1975 language features into this niche. If things had turned out a little bit different we could all have been using OCaml for the past few decades.

Sadly, Rust is only a "huge leap forward from C and C++" for some use-cases. Simple things like returning a const reference to a slot in an immutable array are easily 10x the amount of source code in Rust when compared to C. And all the standard libraries for embedded systems are C, so to get into embedded development, you definitely need to be good at reading C code. Rust is an additional skill, but if you only know…

[deleted]

Re: I Hope Rust Does Not Oxidize Everything

#138

Post by steveklabnik »

fxtentacle wrote: post #42
noelwelsh wrote: post #3

Rust is certainly not the last word in systems programming languages, but it's an huge leap forward from C and C++. To be honest, it's a sad reflection of our industry that it's taken this long to get basic safety + ML circa 1975 language features into this niche. If things had turned out a little bit different we could all have been using OCaml for the past few decades.

Sadly, Rust is only a "huge leap forward from C and C++" for some use-cases. Simple things like returning a const reference to a slot in an immutable array are easily 10x the amount of source code in Rust when compared to C. And all the standard libraries for embedded systems are C, so to get into embedded development, you definitely need to be good at reading C code. Rust is an additional skill, but if you only know…

> Simple things like returning a const reference to a slot in an immutable array are easily 10x the amount of source code in Rust when compared to C.

I’m very interested in what you mean here. Isn’t the syntax identical in both cases?

  &array[index]

Re: I Hope Rust Does Not Oxidize Everything

#139

Post by rascul »

amenhotep wrote: post #90

I just cloned the Starship repo and cargo --release built it and it took six minutes and 30 seconds (which did feel interminable). The author says it takes him 15 minutes "for building just the main.rs", 10 minutes for "lib.rs" and an unspecified time for "everything else". My CPU is from 2012 . What on earth is he doing this on, a TI-83? Or am I missing some intricacy of whatever Gentoo is doing that would inherentl…

5m 39s here on a 2017 CPU: Intel(R) Pentium(R) CPU G4560T @ 2.90GHz

Re: I Hope Rust Does Not Oxidize Everything

#140

Post by bryanlarsen »

ceronman wrote: post #32

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…

IMO there was only a brief period of monoculture, and only if you consider C & C++ to be part of the same culture, which is a stretch. It started in the mid-80s when people stopped writing programs in Pascal and/or assembly, and stopped in the mid-90s when Java & Perl started to get used extensively.
Post reply on HN