I can accept compilation being slow, slower than C++, but do large projects require >32GB memory, for example the case of LLVM, Chromium, or Envoy?
Had to buy a new laptop because of this.
Several core problems with Rust
11–20 of 341 posts
Re: Several core problems with Rust
#12I think we’ve officially reached the inflection point where the Rust haters have become more annoying than the Rust evangelists. Maybe in a couple years we will finally be able to stop writing blog post about it.
We really just need official/honest guidance on Rust for what works and what doesn't. The classic example is the dodging around cyclic datastructures.
Tl;DR Rust doesn't support any form of cyclic datastructure without indirection or unsafe. The indirection tooling is weak, and most real examples simply switch to unsafe rust. Unsafe rust is completely fine if you know what you are doing with memory, and is ok to use in these situations.
There are a few other gotchas that we just need to be clear about, some of these gotchas are limiting for developing higher level software and some are not e.g. String handling. If you are comfortable with unsafe, the rust toolchain is vastly superior to C/C++ development making it as close to an ideal replacement as we are likely to get.
Re: Several core problems with Rust
#13I mean there's nothing better than Rust, just talk about what in Rust is annoying instead of saying that
Re: Several core problems with Rust
#14> Node.js and Go are considered practically safe language
Node JS has had vulnerabilities in the past: https://www.cvedetails.com/cve/CVE-2021-22940/
Go is also not Memory safe: https://www.ralfj.de/blog/2025/07/24/memory-safety.html
Re: Several core problems with Rust
#15> Memory safety is not that sacred. In fact, for many applications malfunctioning is better than crashing
Yeah, just another data leak, no biggie.
Re: Several core problems with Rust
#16Re: Several core problems with Rust
#17Totally wrong. > Its compilation is slow. I mean SLOW. Slower than C++. No way. Maybe Rust 1.0, but it's steadily improved and it's definitely faster than C++ now. > It’s complex. Just as complex as C++. True, but the problem with C++'s complexity is that you have to memorise all of it or you'll accidentally invoke UB. It's so complex that is basically impossible. Rust is complex but most of the time the compiler wil…
> I would love to hear what he thinks a good programming language is
not OP, but outside of extreme performance critical software I MUCH prefer Swift, C# or python.
Re: Several core problems with Rust
#18I can accept compilation being slow, slower than C++, but do large projects require >32GB memory, for example the case of LLVM, Chromium, or Envoy? Had to buy a new laptop because of this.
[deleted]
Re: Several core problems with Rust
#19[flagged]
Why do you think that?
Because it follows same structure as the one used by LLM-s. At least there is a reason to think so — before you've tried to actually read the article and realize LLM-s just don't write text like this... yet. Of course, this structure is also the one used by scientific articles, which I read a lot too, so I'm really inclined to follow this style. "Has the form of scientific article but statements are not precise = AI slop" — that's the implication.
Funny fact: one of the reasons Qwen suggested my article is LLM-generated is because it considered link as impossible. I was so gaslit I opened the article and clicked the link. And it worked. Mic drop.
Re: Several core problems with Rust
#20I think we’ve officially reached the inflection point where the Rust haters have become more annoying than the Rust evangelists. Maybe in a couple years we will finally be able to stop writing blog post about it.
> Rust haters have become more annoying than the Rust evangelists
I disagree. There's a long road till that inflection point for me.