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

361–370 of 520 posts

Re: Rust is tier-1 language at Microsoft

#361

Post by eru »

dgroshev wrote: post #328
Tanjreeve wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people it's good at syntax and the error messages give you a good loop. But the domains rust actually makes sense in tend to be quite punishing on slop both culturally and technically.

To add to this, I find that the delta between the amount of code and pain you get with good and bad abstractions is substantially higher in rust than other languages. It's alright to muddle through in Python or TS, but with Rust bad abstractions are punishing. LLMs are pretty bad at picking abstractions.

It's good that it's punishing when the abstraction are bad: then you notice. With Python or TS, as you say, you get less feedback.

Re: Rust is tier-1 language at Microsoft

#362

Post by amir734jj »

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 is no way they can re-write everything in Rust by 2030. No way. Even new projects are modern C++ at MSFT. Some teams are creating their Rust/C++ binding but that's a very small fraction.

Re: Rust is tier-1 language at Microsoft

#364

Post by bmitc »

devy wrote: post #162

This makes strategic sense in multiple ways: 1. Rust's memory safety design will help Microsoft improve a gigantic portfolios of products that have been known to have lots of CVEs and 70% of them are memory safety issues, according to Azure CTO Mark Russinovich's talk at RustCon last year.[1] 2. Windows 11's forceful push to retire millions of legacy PC hardware by putting Windows 10 EOL last October was absurd for m…

> Windows 11 refused to run on those legacy hardware

What legacy hardware was this?

Re: Rust is tier-1 language at Microsoft

#366

Post by 4k0hz »

tialaramex wrote: post #169
i2talics wrote: post #157

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.

Rust 1.0 was in 2015. Most of these languages you're thinking of out of the Handmade Community didn't even start development until around the point Rust 1.0 shipped. In theory Odin 2027, the 1.0 release of Bill's Odin language, is scheduled for, as the name suggests, early 2027. Zig does not have an announced 1.0 schedule, and who knows for the other two famous Handmade languages. From the rash of "C++ successor" lan…

[dead]

Re: Rust is tier-1 language at Microsoft

#368

Post by apatheticonion »

strix_varius wrote: post #354
apatheticonion wrote: post #342

I've been writing Rust professionally for the last 5 years (where my first decade of professional experience started in frontend, then moved down the stack TypeScript/Node, Go, C# and so on). From the perspective of high level application development, I can't see a technical use case for a language other than Rust these days. If wasm worked (and MacOS/Windows/Android/iOS native UI support existed), I would write my b…

> From the perspective of high level application development, I can't see a technical use case for a language other than Rust. Bit of a red flag if you really can't.

I know, haha. It's a bit of an absolute statement but as far as all of the features I look for in the context of creating scalable and maintainable software (especially in the age of agent-assisted coding) - Rust has been the most productive, least frustrating language I have worked with.

It's basically TypeScript but runtime exceptions are impossible. If it compiles, it works - so the _only_ thing you worry about is how you organised your code (abstractions, domains, etc) and if the logic is correct.

It saves a lot of time in PR reviews because you only really complain about logic or code organization.

By contrast, C#, Go, Java all have runtime exceptions for things like null pointers and race conditions. That means, when reviewing code, you have to be on the lookout for those things in addition to the logic and structure.

On the single threaded side, TypeScript is great, but JavaScript runtime performance and resource utilization is obscene. With Rust basically being TypeScript but without those limitations (and also natively supporting more frontend frameworks without transpilers), what is the use case for TypeScript (other than legacy software already being written in JavaScript or TypeScript)?

You can write Rust with your eyes closed and it'll probably work.

Re: Rust is tier-1 language at Microsoft

#369

Post by aaronmdjones »

delta_p_delta_x wrote: post #312
odo1242 wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A headwind makes it harder to advance in the direction you're going nit: except in aviation

Also in aviation, but with caveats; you want to take off and land with a headwind, because the headwind gives a greater airspeed which means greater lift.

This is true for takeoffs but not for landings. You want to land with a headwind because this means that for the same airspeed you have a lower groundspeed, i.e. when you actually touch down you're going slower on the runway than if you touched down at the same airspeed but with a tailwind.

Re: Rust is tier-1 language at Microsoft

#370

Post by apatheticonion »

ThunderSizzle wrote: post #343
apatheticonion wrote: post #342

I've been writing Rust professionally for the last 5 years (where my first decade of professional experience started in frontend, then moved down the stack TypeScript/Node, Go, C# and so on). From the perspective of high level application development, I can't see a technical use case for a language other than Rust these days. If wasm worked (and MacOS/Windows/Android/iOS native UI support existed), I would write my b…

Interesting perspective. I toyed with rust a bit from the perspective of a c# background (and a bit of java, php, classic asp, JavaScript, typescript, etc) . I like rust, but I've come to still prefer c#'s object oriented features. Perhaps it's my naivety, but I've found c# AOT compilation to do plenty of trimming and startup performance optimization that I don't see it as a bad option. Have you made a personal compa…

From a software design standpoint, it certainly takes some adjustment going from OOP to the compositional architecture and structural trait system used by Rust, but it's not that big a shift.

The biggest downsides are the poor standard library that ships with Rust and the non prescriptive project structure which puts too much authority on the writer to figure out.

The biggest wins are that runtime exceptions and concurrency bugs are impossible. So you can basically write Rust with your eyes closed and, if it compiles, it's probably right.

Due to the high level of trust the compiler gives you, PR reviews (and reviewing AI generated code) is limited to design decisions and logic implementations.

I only really think about architectural decisions, like "this code belongs to X domain, so I should put it in X crate" or "my project should use a hexagonal architecture, does this change violate that? Should I create a package/crate to contain this logic?"

If you don't care about optimisations, a naive implementation in Rust will effortlessly outperform C# and use orders of magnitude less resources, but optionally, the pay off for optimisation is high.

Post reply on HN