I expect the rebuttal "Rust is Software's Doom" soon.
How about Rust is Software's "Doom Soon?"
http://www.anthropic-principle.com/?q=anthropic_principle/do...
Rust is Software's Salvation
111–120 of 182 posts
Re: Rust is Software's Salvation
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
or "10 Reasons Why Everything You Know About Rust Is Wrong"... ;)
I'm waiting for when an earnest "Rust Considered Harmful", or perhaps a "Falsehoods Programmers Believe about Rust" shows up.
How Rust guarantees referential safety with One Weird Trick.
Re: Rust is Software's Salvation
#113This may be wishful thinking, but to echo Alan Kay, I have been hoping that with the stalling of Moore's law we'd start being a little more thoughtful about the instruction set architecture (like the B5000) so that we can do safe and performant things in higher-level languages. I like Rust. I just don't think doing things in a better C than C is going to yield as much of a payoff as these guys think it will.
I think they're right, security wise.
Re: Rust is Software's Salvation
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is, especially if these checks are done at compile time, not at runtime.
Expect a blog post within four hours "Rust has solved the halting problem!"...
Even when you can't prove what arbitrary code does, proving what well-written code does is useful, and not writing unprovable code would be a small price to pay.
Re: Rust is Software's Salvation
#115This may be wishful thinking, but to echo Alan Kay, I have been hoping that with the stalling of Moore's law we'd start being a little more thoughtful about the instruction set architecture (like the B5000) so that we can do safe and performant things in higher-level languages. I like Rust. I just don't think doing things in a better C than C is going to yield as much of a payoff as these guys think it will.
I think they're right, security wise.
I remember doing all sorts of "clever" arcane things to get a smooth high frame rate for a program on my old IBM PC. Next generation, they have actual graphics cards with overlays, easy vsync, and double-buffering where the buffers can be swapped with a simple toggle instead of trying to find some way to shuffle the bytes faster.
I was able to replace pages of "cleverness" with a few lines of code in the same language.
These guys are very impressed with their improved hammer. It might not be the best tool for the job.
Re: Rust is Software's Salvation
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
The echoes of Golang hype right now are somewhat ominous. A few years ago it was "concurrency primitives are going to change your life" and now it's "lifetime/ownership primitives are going to change your life." I am somewhat disappointed that we still feel the need to create entirely new toolchains and rewrite everything just to support what should be an incremental improvement. But at a certain point, a lot of the…
If we were betting money, I'd put mine on Golang over Rust just because of the piles of money and effort Google keeps pouring into it. Rust is a little cooler, but I just don't see Mozilla having enough resources to keep-up the momentum long-term.
Go's not been receiving any piles of money from Google. Compare Go's API documentation to Rust's API documentation. Where's the `cargo` and `rustup` equivalent for Go? Compare the number of Go packages to the number of Rust packages. Seems Go's not doing so great despite being stable for much longer.
> I just don't see Mozilla having enough resources to keep-up the momentum long-term.
Did you forget about Samsung? Mozilla and Samsung aren't the only two companies backing Rust.
Re: Rust is Software's Salvation
#117The best defense is a good offense. What is scaring all of the Rust developers and users so badly that they feel the need to go on such an offensive hype campaign? It's worse than the phase Java went through when it hit its peak. I'll be honest. Until we start seeing some more balanced (frankly, I'd settle for nuanced) discussion about the compromises made to get Rust's strengths, I'm staying the hell away from it.
>It's worse than the phase Java went through when it hit its peak. As a person who lived through the 1990s Java hype and had a bookshelf full of the official Java books (Addison-Wesley white books)[1], the Rust evangelism is nowhere near that level. To refresh the memory, 1990s Java evangelists predicted: 1) C/C++ would become obsolete because in the age of abundant desktop resources (cpu power and more RAM), the GC…
Java/Sun really could've been a serious threat to Microsoft. Microsoft knew this, which is why they rushed to create a competitor (.NET).
Re: Rust is Software's Salvation
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nobody is saying Rust is perfect Err, the title of this article is "Rust is Software's Salvation". The previous one was "Rust is mostly safety". No discussion of trade offs, no negatives to be found. From the original article: "[Rust is] Technology from the past come to save the future from itself" > Not sure why marketing Rust implies that the community is trying to defend it The original article was a call for ma…
And this is getting nauseating even to these wanting to give it a try. I'm in the step of walking away and forget about it until the dirt settles down (and it becomes at least as fast as C/C++ or... even Go)
I was competing against some C and C++ software developers in Advent of Code with efficient solutions, and my Rust solutions came out faster each time. Might want to check your facts.
Re: Rust is Software's Salvation
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quote: "Rust's borrow checker is a wonderful thing that forces you into designing code to be more robust. But as it is so unlike anything you're used to, it takes time to develop a certain knack to work with it efficiently." I don't think it's description of an issue.
>"I don't think it's description of an issue." It is if it drives potential community members away.
No one's being driven away. Only people who had no intention on trying Rust are complaining about it.
Re: Rust is Software's Salvation
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know why you are down voted. Compile time is a Rust issue for me. I'm spoiled by D. However I'm not sure if borrow checking is inherently slow. The release notes are discouraging. 30% faster? Aim for 10 times faster. Maybe it is just the LLVM backend. It still is slow.
> Maybe it is just the LLVM backend. It still is slow. It's a combination of two things, as far as I know. 1. The LLVM backend is slow. 2. The Rust frontend has historically abused the LLVM backend badly, by feeding it large amounts of barely optimized code. This is being worked on, but it's going to take a while.
> 2. The Rust frontend has historically abused the LLVM backend badly, by feeding it large amounts of barely optimized code. This is being worked on, but it's going to take a while.
That's what I heard 2~3 years ago.