Why I’m dropping Rust

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 9:11 PM UTC

Animats wrote: post #57

stouset wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what conceivable way? Safe Rust allows one to do an incredible amount of things whole providing strong guarantees against the sorts of problems that plague lower level languages. Since this isn't suitable for absolutely everything, we have unsafe Rust to fill in the gaps in the small areas it's needed. Unsafe Rust isn't "bad", it just doesn't provide the same guarantees as safe Rust. And if something goes wrong, y…

And if something goes wrong, you can at least narrow down your search to unsafe areas of the code. No. That's only true if the unsafe code presents a completely safe interface to its callers. If the safe code opens a hole in Rust's protection system, which is very easy to do, you can now have C-type no-idea-where-it-is bugs.

Post by elcritch » Thu, Sep 15, 2016, 4:35 AM UTC

shadowmint wrote: post #123

loup-vaillant wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Granted, current GUI toolkits are huge. On the other hand, I have worked with Qt, and this convinced me most of the complexity there was a blend of avoidable bloat and a long tail of features few people ever use (a bit like offices suites). I'm pretty sure properly written GUI toolkits can be much smaller. As in, satisfying 90% of our needs in a couple thousand lines of code. (The remaining 10% might require heaps an…

I'm pretty sure properly written GUI toolkits can be much smaller... Given that as far as I know, there are no examples of tiny fully-featured GUI libraries (it's all either trivial like cgui or a massive bloated mammoth like qt/wpf/android), isn't that a bit of a rich statement? Like, I'm sure you can write a procedural generator in a handful of lines of code that spits out the full works of Shakespeare. It's probab…