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

Rust is tier-1 language at Microsoft

rustfoundation.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 522 posts

Re: Rust is tier-1 language at Microsoft

#151

Post by vouwfietsman »

isolay wrote: post #88
pdpi wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's two ways to approach this — build tooling for existing Rust developers to get them to adopt the Microsoft stack, or build tooling for existing Microsoft stack developers to get them to adopt Rust. I'd argue that the former is less important than the latter, and my understanding is that Visual Studio is still the IDE for Windows-centric development, so for those MS-first developers, Rust missing from VS means…

It would have to be the 2nd option. Who in their right mind would voluntarily choose Windows as their dev env? It will have to be those who are already there.

This kind of stuff is why its hard to have good conversations about tooling. Windows is the best place for many kinds of software dev, but perhaps not the kind you are doing.

Re: Rust is tier-1 language at Microsoft

#152

Post by swozey »

nicman23 wrote: post #145
swozey wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been doing forest service stuff for a year with almost no signal and often no gps without antenna and it's incredible what asks for location permission to run. My amazon bought LEDs (15+, 3-5 diff types) all check location before I can connect them. I wind up waiting 30 seconds sometimes more to turn lights on. My generator and inverter have to phone home so that lags constantly. Also I've been shadowbanned from…

i prefer the macos mindset if not the actual OS

I just looked and I think what I'm talking about, where they folded more specific permission callouts under a broad term "Full disk access" "local devices" etc used to be more granular before they updated that UI to match the iphone. If I got a jumpscare permission prompt on macos, I used to actually be concerned. Now they're all jumpscares for basic stuff.

But I could be misremembering. I haven't liked any of the recent macos releases. I will begrudgingly install Golden Gate to hopefully fix my m1 max 64gb slowing ot a crawl with Tahoe.

Re: Rust is tier-1 language at Microsoft

#154

Post by estebank »

eterm wrote: post #148
gregw2 wrote: post #122

Those interested in this may find the following articles of interest: Microsoft goals [edit: err, Microsoft hiring manager vision-casting goal ] to convert 1 billion lines of code to rust by 2030 via automated tooling enabling "1 engineer, 1 month, 1 million lines of code": https://thenewstack.io/microsofts-bold-goal-replace-1b-lines... DARPA work towards automating converting C code to Rust using a mix of 6 differen…

There have also been repeated statements from NSA & CISA that they recommend all development should be done in memory safe languages. It's abundantly clear that there is a strong headwind towards memory safety, whether that's Rust or GC'd languages.

A headwind makes it harder to advance in the direction you're going. I think you might have meant to say "there is a strong tailwind towards memory safety".

Re: Rust is tier-1 language at Microsoft

#155

Post by i2talics »

superkuh wrote: post #129

I hope this kind of thing means Rust stops making so many rapid breaking changes in th compiler. I've tried it twice, once in early 2021 once 2025. Both times I tried to compile a few random projects I found on the web, stuff like a wordpress fanfic scraper, a software defined radio program, etc. In 2021 my linux distro I was using had just been released 3 months prior but it's rustc already could not compile 2 of 3…

It sounds like you are not running into breaking changes, you are just running into projects that like to use new features that are not available in your older compiler.

Re: Rust is tier-1 language at Microsoft

#156

Post by eterm »

estebank wrote: post #154
eterm wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have also been repeated statements from NSA & CISA that they recommend all development should be done in memory safe languages. It's abundantly clear that there is a strong headwind towards memory safety, whether that's Rust or GC'd languages.

A headwind makes it harder to advance in the direction you're going. I think you might have meant to say "there is a strong tailwind towards memory safety".

You're right, I better do a 360 on my comment ;)

Re: Rust is tier-1 language at Microsoft

#157

Post by i2talics »

I hope announcements like this show that Rust is not a fledgling little language that moves fast and breaks things anymore. It's a mature, serious competitor to well established languages like C++ and C#. This is particularly important when trying to compare the experience of using Rust to other languages in the "better C/C++" space like Zig and Odin -- these are much newer and have more rough edges than Rust.

Re: Rust is tier-1 language at Microsoft

#158

Post by tomrod »

echelon wrote: post #69
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like Rust a lot but I'm not sure it would come very high up my list for web applications.

Axum and Actix are phenomenal web frameworks. The type system and error handling ergonomics make it easier to write defect-free code than, say, Go or Java. Simple servers are request scoped and mostly feature linear request handling, so you're writing simple vanilla Rust without the complex pointer semantics that you would use for systems programming. The async pieces aren't difficult either. Serde-annotated structs…

Say more. I need me proper rust in the browser.

Re: Rust is tier-1 language at Microsoft

#159

Post by gregw2 »

burakemir wrote: post #127
gregw2 wrote: post #122

Those interested in this may find the following articles of interest: Microsoft goals [edit: err, Microsoft hiring manager vision-casting goal ] to convert 1 billion lines of code to rust by 2030 via automated tooling enabling "1 engineer, 1 month, 1 million lines of code": https://thenewstack.io/microsofts-bold-goal-replace-1b-lines... DARPA work towards automating converting C code to Rust using a mix of 6 differen…

It would be possible for me to give a more nuanced take, but the upshot is: none of that shit is going to work 100%. One may get local maxima like an unsafe bonanza, or something that introduces a custom runtime memory management discipline at the cost of performance etc. Fully equivalent C++ to Rust in full generality is mainly wishful thinking. Of course that does not mean one should not try it. See also my other c…

Oh, I 100% agree. The question is how much you can reduce the effort of the port/migration, and in particular the validation effort.

I've worked on projects where the core bits of code were "90%" converted by some automated tool, and in my view the overall benefit to the project timeline was probably only 20-30% because of the Amdahl's-law-type overheads of validation and bits of code not supported by the automation/conversion process. Nice, but no silver bullet.

Non-idiomatic porting also isn't super-helpful if the resulting code isn't maintainable.

Re: Rust is tier-1 language at Microsoft

#160

Post by estebank »

0x457 wrote: post #150
superkuh wrote: post #129

I hope this kind of thing means Rust stops making so many rapid breaking changes in th compiler. I've tried it twice, once in early 2021 once 2025. Both times I tried to compile a few random projects I found on the web, stuff like a wordpress fanfic scraper, a software defined radio program, etc. In 2021 my linux distro I was using had just been released 3 months prior but it's rustc already could not compile 2 of 3…

You can compile any old code with newer rustc as long as old project does not use unstable features that have changed/went away. What are you on? I recently recompiled project from 2015 with latest stable rust just fine. All breaking changesin rust done via editions and you can mix-and-match editions.

I suspect GP is using system rustc to build random projects off of github and doesn't use one of the distros that actually updates rustc, like Fedora, SuSE or Arch.

Then the conversation is about forward compatibility, whether developers should wait X amount of time before using new std APIs or features, and whether the ease of using rustup and project expectation of it being accessible is reasonable or not.

Post reply on HN