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

Rust Isn't the Future of Systems Programming – It's Just the Hype Cycle

freedium-mirror.cfd

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 43 posts

Re: Rust Isn't the Future of Systems Programming – It's Just the Hype Cycle

#11

Post by pjmlp »

Regardless of the article being AI generated or not, I would rather vote for automatic resource management, with type systems improvements for low level coding, regardless of the form, between affine, linear, effects, proofs, dependent types, there is plenty to choose from.

The note that Rust cannot fully replace C++ as long as it depends on using it for its key compiler backends.

Finally even if it is a bubble, AI driven programming is making specific languages irrelevant, eventually only AI language runtimes will need fine grained control how everything works, at the bottom layer.

Maybe the future is an AI language compiler generating machine code directly, with similar productivy as Xerox PARC workstations, Lisp Machines, or Bret Victor ideas.

Re: Rust Isn't the Future of Systems Programming – It's Just the Hype Cycle

#12

Post by patchymcnoodles »

I find the comparison about being good for newcomers rather interesting. I would say none of them are easy for beginners. I don't see where C(++) can shine here. For a beginner into systems programming Go would be much easier as example. And if it's about programming in general then there are many, many more languages to choose from that are all easier to learn than C(++) and Rust.

Re: Rust Isn't the Future of Systems Programming – It's Just the Hype Cycle

#13

Post by kjsingh »

pjmlp wrote: post #11

Regardless of the article being AI generated or not, I would rather vote for automatic resource management, with type systems improvements for low level coding, regardless of the form, between affine, linear, effects, proofs, dependent types, there is plenty to choose from. The note that Rust cannot fully replace C++ as long as it depends on using it for its key compiler backends. Finally even if it is a bubble, AI d…

> only AI language runtimes will need fine grained control how everything works

Rust can win against CPP if AI can understand its docs better than CPP's :D

Re: Rust Isn't the Future of Systems Programming – It's Just the Hype Cycle

#15

Post by rich_sasha »

I sort of thing the article has a point, though I disagree with the arguments. C++ 20 years ago was simple, sure. Today? I think it's on par with Rust. And both kind of have a simple core you can stick to if you like.

Saying project directory structure is complex is IMO crazy, since a fair comparison would be to general package/dependency management on C++ which is a brain explosion.

Where they do have a point is that I would hope, we can create a language that is at the same time fast, safe and simple to use. Right now we have a tradeoff triangle. Rust is safer than C++, about as fast, and arguably harder to use. Something gives.

The article absolutely has a point that C is trivial to pick up, and surely that fueled the explosion of software.

Re: Rust Isn't the Future of Systems Programming – It's Just the Hype Cycle

#17

Post by MattPalmer1086 »

7bit wrote: post #16

A steep learning curve mean you learn a lot (y-axis) in a short time (y-axis). So the graph goes up fast (steep). When making bold clickbaity claims like the author does, at least get your terms right...

No, the phrase a "steep learning curve" implies that learning is difficult and therefore progress may be slow.

It is actually a misnomer. Your interpretation of the graph is correct, but the phrase actually means the opposite.

Re: Rust Isn't the Future of Systems Programming – It's Just the Hype Cycle

#18

Post by MattPalmer1086 »

rich_sasha wrote: post #15

I sort of thing the article has a point, though I disagree with the arguments. C++ 20 years ago was simple, sure. Today? I think it's on par with Rust. And both kind of have a simple core you can stick to if you like. Saying project directory structure is complex is IMO crazy, since a fair comparison would be to general package/dependency management on C++ which is a brain explosion. Where they do have a point is tha…

C++ was not simple 20 years ago! We had template metaprogramming, and regular arguments about what subset of the language we could all agree on to safely use. Nobody understood it all even back then.

Re: Rust Isn't the Future of Systems Programming – It's Just the Hype Cycle

#19

Post by ls-a »

aw1621107 wrote: post #9
bigyabai wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again - there's nothing to refute. The only accusation in the video is that there is some grand conspiracy against C++ users, which would give Chris Lattner a belly laugh. If it is you recording that video, I hope you get over it. You can find a better way to process your grief than complaining on all three of your HN accounts.

> If it is you recording that video, I hope you get over it. You can find a better way to process your grief than complaining on all three of your HN accounts. Based on the profile pic and the other videos on the channel, I think it's reasonable to conclude that the channel owner is also the author of the C++ fast_io library [0]. They've been quite vocal about their dislike of Rust (among other things) over the past…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN