Three months of Rust
scattered-thoughts.net
Three months of Rust
1–10 of 120 posts
Re: Three months of Rust
#2Coming from C#, that syntax looks completely alien to me. I need to write a very small monitoring app to run on a tiny armel box so I may try Go. I will still miss Visual Studio's debugger, though.
Re: Three months of Rust
#3Great to see some feedback on Rust, I've only played a bit but was quite impressed, dsepite being a mostly high level programmer.
However, it sounds like Eve is a simple, dynamically typed programming language/environment. So it's super weird to me to see him rave about the safety and type system of Rust...
Re: Three months of Rust
#4Coming from C#, that syntax looks completely alien to me. I need to write a very small monitoring app to run on a tiny armel box so I may try Go. I will still miss Visual Studio's debugger, though.
Go is shit. Trust me, Rust will suit you better. Coming from C# it will be a lot closer to what you're used to than the bizzaro-world of Go.
Re: Three months of Rust
#5Coming from C#, that syntax looks completely alien to me. I need to write a very small monitoring app to run on a tiny armel box so I may try Go. I will still miss Visual Studio's debugger, though.
Go is shit. Trust me, Rust will suit you better. Coming from C# it will be a lot closer to what you're used to than the bizzaro-world of Go.
I'm not against you, but to convince, you need to tell why, why the sh*t? why to trust you?
Re: Three months of Rust
#6Coming from C#, that syntax looks completely alien to me. I need to write a very small monitoring app to run on a tiny armel box so I may try Go. I will still miss Visual Studio's debugger, though.
Go is shit. Trust me, Rust will suit you better. Coming from C# it will be a lot closer to what you're used to than the bizzaro-world of Go.
Nonsense, go is fine, so is rust.
Re: Three months of Rust
#7"For our 2400 loc it takes 20s for a dev build and 70s for a release build. "
I have played with rust, but not written any large amounts of code. This makes me a bit sad though, I have 7000 lines of go which takes less than a second. I think there is a bunch of bloat in software compilation which the plan9/Go people were wise to stamp out.
Compare gcc/clang/rustc build times from source with building go 1.5 from source which bootstraps itself. It comes down to something like 20 minutes vs 20 seconds.
Re: Three months of Rust
#8"Modern machines are a huge pile of opaque and unreliable heuristics and the current trend is to add more and more layers on top. The vast majority of systems are built this way and it is by all accounts a successful strategy. That doesn’t mean I have to like it."
This is a really valuable observation.
"Smart" compilers seem great for letting you write code without thinking too hard when performance requirements are loose, but they make it difficult to achieve peak performance in two ways:
1. The fact that details of the machine are abstracted away from you means that you may never learn them well.
2. It ends up being insufficient just to know the details of the machine, because you also need to know how to coax the compiler into producing the low level result that you want, and then you need to be vigilant that later changes to the compiler don't break your assumptions.
Re: Three months of Rust
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Go is shit. Trust me, Rust will suit you better. Coming from C# it will be a lot closer to what you're used to than the bizzaro-world of Go.
Nonsense, go is fine, so is rust.
Both are really great. I think Go is better for servers and rust can be great on embedded and high performance applications.
Re: Three months of Rust
#10"For our 2400 loc it takes 20s for a dev build and 70s for a release build. " I have played with rust, but not written any large amounts of code. This makes me a bit sad though, I have 7000 lines of go which takes less than a second. I think there is a bunch of bloat in software compilation which the plan9/Go people were wise to stamp out. Compare gcc/clang/rustc build times from source with building go 1.5 from sour…
The advantage, of course, is that LLVM has probably over a hundred man-years of optimizations in it, including two IRs (SSA LLVM IR, SelectionDAG), tons of target-specific optimizations (ScheduleDAG, Machine-level optimizations), great tooling (e.g. DWARF support, Address/Thread Sanitizer), and lots of community support. None of it is bloat as far as Rust is concerned. I optimize bare-metal Rust code nearly every day and if I had to spend time fixing suboptimal codegen due to missing optimization passes in the compiler I'd never get my job done. Especially since I work on ARM, where bad codegen punishes you hard.
There's certainly a lot of room for improvement in Rust's build times, but LLVM was completely indispensable for the language to get off the ground, and I don't regret using it for a minute.