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

Why Rust?

rerun.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 294 posts

Re: Why Rust?

#191

Post by valenterry »

bobajeff wrote: post #36

As someone who's not the biggest fan of Rust because of its complexity. There is a big reason to use it today. If you need to use something that has safety guarantees where it's possible to achieve acceptable performance in certain classes of programs where languages like golang, nim or crystal have trouble achieving then I just don't see any other options out there certainly not one with as many libraries available…

You can choose between 1) your programming language being complex or 2) your codebase being huge, repetitive and boilerplaty. I know what I'll choose any day.

Re: Why Rust?

#192

Post by alexb_ »

manholio wrote: post #94
black_puppydog wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Too bad most of the Rust jobs right now seem to be in crypto. It is not really surprising that the crypto bros jumped onto the bandwagon, the tech got hyped just around the same time. Just, one of them correctly. :) It's just a shame that other companies don't seem to follow suit. Except some, who always ask for "Senior Rust Developer" which I'd guess is still a limited supply market. :D

> Except some, who always ask for "Senior Rust Developer" which I'd guess is still a limited supply market. I've seen a role advertised for 750k/month. It makes sens: those who move fastest get to milk the crypto bubble and make out like bandits. Oh wait, exactly like bandits.

I think you misread - they are talking about the non-crypto companies here.

Re: Why Rust?

#193

Post by stonemetal12 »

cageface wrote: post #29

I've started working in Rust too and I too find it a tremendous breath of fresh air. It's the first time I've been excited about a new programming language in many years. C++ promised to be a language that was both high performance and very expressive but I always found it very difficult to work at a high level of abstraction in C++. The sharp details always stab through. Rust code, on the other hand, often doesn't l…

You might try looking at r/rust they have a who's hiring post like HN does. I have only looked at it once or twice but haven't seen a single crypto post.

Re: Why Rust?

#194

Post by pjmlp »

cageface wrote: post #110
pjmlp wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> C++ promised to be a language that was both high performance and very expressive but I always found it very difficult to work at a high level of abstraction in C++. The sharp details always stab through. I wonder why, doing Windows programming with OWL in 1993 was quite delightful, or Mac with AppToolbox/PowerPlant,... Yes there is always C stuff coming throught the cracks, but I see similar aproaches with Rust cod…

Yeah everything was perfect back in my day and there's nothing new under the sun. You kids get off my lawn. I've been coding C/C++ since 1995. I'll take Rust any day, thanks.

Are we GUI, CUDA and SYSCL yet?

Don't forget that to contribute to Rust backends on their present forms, some C++ is required.

Re: Why Rust?

#195

Post by artogahr »

cageface wrote: post #152

For someone like me that's an experienced programmer but relatively new to Rust, what are some open source Rust projects that could benefit from some help?

Also me. Albeit probably not as experienced as OP, I still would like to help.

Re: Why Rust?

#196

Post by pjmlp »

badsectoracula wrote: post #123
pjmlp wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> C++ promised to be a language that was both high performance and very expressive but I always found it very difficult to work at a high level of abstraction in C++. The sharp details always stab through. I wonder why, doing Windows programming with OWL in 1993 was quite delightful, or Mac with AppToolbox/PowerPlant,... Yes there is always C stuff coming throught the cracks, but I see similar aproaches with Rust cod…

> doing Windows programming with OWL in 1993 was quite delightful I never used the C++ version OWL (though i do have Borland C++ 5 around here, perhaps i'll try it for fun at some point), but the Turbo Pascal version of OWL (which i also really used but had a brush with - and some docs) wasn't really that great - more of a helper library for the underlying Windows API, needing to know the underlying API, in practice…

When the alternative was raw Win16, it was certainly delightful and felt pretty much an evolution from Turbo Vision.

Naturally VCL was even better, Microsoft is still trying to catch up with C++ Builder and failing spectacularly at it. C++/CX could have been it, but then the ATL/WRL folks at WinDev had to kill it.

Re: Why Rust?

#198

Post by lnenad »

traceroute66 wrote: post #168
horsawlarway wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're failing to address the elephant in the room: The browser is simply the single best application distribution method humanity has ever created. Full stop. There are literally no other tools that give anywhere close to the same benefits. So 200kb of scripts might seem "HUGE!" to someone who's thinking about the web as a tool for distributing static information (blog distribution). But in the context of ap…

> See my point? No. Because your point only works if you make (at least) two prior assumptions which are not always true. Number one you assume everyone has high-speed broadband and "unlimited" 5G on mobile. This might well be the case in many parts of the Western world. But I can point you to a number of rural areas in the Western world and beyond that, in Africa and Asia where this assumption falls flat. Number two…

What is your counter point with these statements? That having everything in canvas negates these potential issues? That having a native application negates them?

In an ideal scenario of application design, these two assumptions apply as well. So I don't think there is any merit in mentioning them as they're not counter points in any way.

Re: Why Rust?

#199

Post by devmor »

horsawlarway wrote: post #131
traceroute66 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a reason why JS was invented. I disagree. As I see it, JS was invented as a browser utility, as the name implies "script", i.e same as shell script languages such as BASH, for doing small amounts of interactive stuff. What JS has morphed into is a Jeckyll & Hyde monstrosity. Frontend devs now routinely dump 200kb+ of junk down the pipe at people's browsers because its somehow "better" to dump the processin…

I think you're failing to address the elephant in the room: The browser is simply the single best application distribution method humanity has ever created. Full stop. There are literally no other tools that give anywhere close to the same benefits. So 200kb of scripts might seem "HUGE!" to someone who's thinking about the web as a tool for distributing static information (blog distribution). But in the context of ap…

Your point and explanation are completely disjointed from eachother.

Javascript is not the sole domain of small executables, its not even its primary feature - hell, one of your own examples isn't even very good. Outlook loads nearly 30MB of javascript immediately when you load your inbox, and they update it nearly every other day so you end up downloading hundreds of megabytes just to read your email every single week instead of just once.

Re: Why Rust?

#200

Post by stonemetal12 »

djha-skin wrote: post #92

> We've had fast languages like C and C++, and then we've had safe languages like Lisp, Java, and Python. The safe languages were all slower. Them's fightin' words. SBCL (Lisp) totally screams with speed as far as I've been able to tell.

https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...

Its runtimes are all like 5X C's. Not sure I would say "screams", it looks like it keeps up with Java though.

Post reply on HN