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

A year of Rust in ClickHouse

clickhouse.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 102 posts

Re: A year of Rust in ClickHouse

#11

Post by AlotOfReading »

uecker wrote: post #7
IshKebab wrote: post #4

This guy seems to be both very positive about Rust and unfairly cynical about it at the same time... Rust is a really fantastic language but having worked on a mixed C++/Rust codebase I can see why they had so many issues. Rust just wasn't really designed with C++ interop in mind so it's kind of painful to use them together. Impressive that they made it work.

"unfairly"? A lot of issues are obvious deficiencies of Rust, including immaturity of the ecosystem, integration issues, complexity, monomorphization bloat, supply chain issues. Now, all languages have issues, and Rust is certainly a nice language overall. The main issue with Rust is that is has been oversold as a panacea for safety using exaggerated arguments. So a bit of cynicism seems entirely fair.

> The main issue with Rust is that is has been oversold as a panacea for safety using exaggerated arguments.

I know you know this, but Rust does provide essentially complete memory and lifetime safety if you stay within the bounds of safe. Standard C/C++ tooling has no way to even reliably detect memory safety violations, let alone fix them. It's trivial to write buffer overflows that escape ASAN, and missing a single violation invalidates the semantic meaning of the entire program (particularly in C++), which means virtually all nontrivial programs in C/C++ have UB somewhere (a point we disagree on).

Safe rust doesn't guarantee all the other possible definitions of safety, but neither does any other mainstream language. I don't think it serves any useful purpose to complain that the rust folks have oversold their safety arguments by "only" eliminating the biggest cause of safety issues. Stroustrup harps on this a lot and it comes across as very disingenuous given the state of C++.

Re: A year of Rust in ClickHouse

#12

Post by ChocolateGod »

neonsunset wrote: post #10
ChocolateGod wrote: post #5

> If you do an experiment and say "C++" anywhere on the Internet, in a minute someone will chime in and educate you about the existence of Rust. Many people see this as a problem. The response to TypeScript choosing Go over Rust was pretty gross imho, no one should be abused for choosing a language.

> no one should be abused for choosing a language Can you link to the abuse?

I recall a thread on Twitter where someone called the TypeScript developers "brain dead *tards" for using Go over Rust.

Re: A year of Rust in ClickHouse

#13

Post by ChocolateGod »

pjmlp wrote: post #8
ChocolateGod wrote: post #5

> If you do an experiment and say "C++" anywhere on the Internet, in a minute someone will chime in and educate you about the existence of Rust. Many people see this as a problem. The response to TypeScript choosing Go over Rust was pretty gross imho, no one should be abused for choosing a language.

The actual issue wasn't Go over Rust, rather having key people responsible for C# design, on a Microsoft project, going for a Google language. While at the same time, the .NET team routinely talks about .NET image problem outside traditional Microsoft shops, which naturally decisions like this aren't helping a tiny bit.

.NET isn't famous for producing portable binaries and I don't think it's being any better now other than some experimental modes that break most code.

Re: A year of Rust in ClickHouse

#14

Post by pjmlp »

ChocolateGod wrote: post #13
pjmlp wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The actual issue wasn't Go over Rust, rather having key people responsible for C# design, on a Microsoft project, going for a Google language. While at the same time, the .NET team routinely talks about .NET image problem outside traditional Microsoft shops, which naturally decisions like this aren't helping a tiny bit.

.NET isn't famous for producing portable binaries and I don't think it's being any better now other than some experimental modes that break most code.

Do you want more portable than bytecode with a dynamic compiler? Apparenty the greatest thing on Earth as per WebAssembly folks.

As for AOT compilation, there have been multiple approaches since the early days, and the latest, Native AOT is good enough for everything required to write a TypeScript compiler, including better WebAssembly support than the Go compiler, thanks to Blazor infrastructure.

Re: A year of Rust in ClickHouse

#15

Post by johnny22 »

ChocolateGod wrote: post #12
neonsunset wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no one should be abused for choosing a language Can you link to the abuse?

I recall a thread on Twitter where someone called the TypeScript developers "brain dead *tards" for using Go over Rust.

That's really dumb, but it's hard to call one one instance abuse. Now, I do beleive it turns into abuse if it a bunch of people do it. Especially if they are bringing their insults specifically into your space (repo forge, mailing lists, flooding your replies on social media, etc).

Re: A year of Rust in ClickHouse

#16

Post by neonsunset »

ChocolateGod wrote: post #12
neonsunset wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no one should be abused for choosing a language Can you link to the abuse?

I recall a thread on Twitter where someone called the TypeScript developers "brain dead *tards" for using Go over Rust.

Ah, so no abuse took place then? Interesting how it works. One could look at it as well-deserved frustration. No one would've batted an eye were Rust to be chosen, but opting into Go over C# or F# is an unquestionably poor long-term decision.

Re: A year of Rust in ClickHouse

#17

Post by rc00 »

neonsunset wrote: post #10
ChocolateGod wrote: post #5

> If you do an experiment and say "C++" anywhere on the Internet, in a minute someone will chime in and educate you about the existence of Rust. Many people see this as a problem. The response to TypeScript choosing Go over Rust was pretty gross imho, no one should be abused for choosing a language.

> no one should be abused for choosing a language Can you link to the abuse?

https://github.com/microsoft/typescript-go/discussions/411

Some of the worst comments have been scrubbed but they might be in one of the internet archival sites.

Re: A year of Rust in ClickHouse

#18

Post by uecker »

IshKebab wrote: post #9
uecker wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"unfairly"? A lot of issues are obvious deficiencies of Rust, including immaturity of the ecosystem, integration issues, complexity, monomorphization bloat, supply chain issues. Now, all languages have issues, and Rust is certainly a nice language overall. The main issue with Rust is that is has been oversold as a panacea for safety using exaggerated arguments. So a bit of cynicism seems entirely fair.

Yes. I was thinking of this: > If you do an experiment and say "C++" anywhere on the Internet, in a minute someone will chime in and educate you about the existence of Rust. > I know examples when engineers rewrite code from Rust in Rust if they like to rewrite everything in Rust. > our engineers become too nauseous from Rust poisoning > So now they [Rust devs] can write something other than new versions of old termi…

If I try to read between the lines, I think the vibe comes from feeling / being pressured to use Rust without really seeing the point and it causing frustration in this context.

I think your vibe is more weird. If people have issues with Rust, it is a "shitty attitude". While, of course, C/C++ just objectively suck, right?

Re: A year of Rust in ClickHouse

#19

Post by uecker »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #11
uecker wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"unfairly"? A lot of issues are obvious deficiencies of Rust, including immaturity of the ecosystem, integration issues, complexity, monomorphization bloat, supply chain issues. Now, all languages have issues, and Rust is certainly a nice language overall. The main issue with Rust is that is has been oversold as a panacea for safety using exaggerated arguments. So a bit of cynicism seems entirely fair.

> The main issue with Rust is that is has been oversold as a panacea for safety using exaggerated arguments. I know you know this, but Rust does provide essentially complete memory and lifetime safety if you stay within the bounds of safe. Standard C/C++ tooling has no way to even reliably detect memory safety violations, let alone fix them. It's trivial to write buffer overflows that escape ASAN, and missing a singl…

Your comment is a perfect example for those exaggerated claims.

Re: A year of Rust in ClickHouse

#20

Post by alserio »

IshKebab wrote: post #4

This guy seems to be both very positive about Rust and unfairly cynical about it at the same time... Rust is a really fantastic language but having worked on a mixed C++/Rust codebase I can see why they had so many issues. Rust just wasn't really designed with C++ interop in mind so it's kind of painful to use them together. Impressive that they made it work.

Check the post date. It was published on April first
Post reply on HN