Why I think Rust is the "language of the future" for systems programming • Hacker News Board

Re: Why I think Rust is the "language of the future" for systems programming

#191

Post by bmnbug » Sun, Sep 30, 2012, 5:55 PM UTC

InclinedPlane wrote: post #136

neilk wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You attribute too much to these entities called "Google" and "Mozilla". They're made of people. No executive asks for a new programming language. However at some enlightened organizations, they are willing to let hackers explore radical approaches. At some point, in order for them to become "official" projects, the hackers have to align the language with the organization's goals. But the imprimatur of their creators…

Visual basic. C#. Powershell. F#. Javascript. Erlang. Fortran. Objective-C. All languages developed intentionally by corporations. Additionally, there have been languages developed by committees, such as ALGOL, COBOL, CPL, Haskell, Ada, and many others.

F# is so close to OCaml that it hardly counts as being "designed" at all.

Re: Why I think Rust is the "language of the future" for systems programming

#192

Post by cmccabe » Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 5:39 PM UTC

scott_s wrote: post #190

cmccabe wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Go is intended to replace C. It was intended to replace C++.

C++ was intended to replace C, so it's intended to replace both.

Let's not judge the intentions of the Golang authors by what the intentions of the C++ authors were.

Golang is a higher level language than C. It will not be suitable for non-GC'ed environments, and the Golang authors are perfectly well aware of that. It's ok to make a language that solves many problems really well, without trying to solve every problem in the world in one bloated language.

Re: Why I think Rust is the "language of the future" for systems programming

#193

Post by cmccabe » Fri, Oct 05, 2012, 7:59 AM UTC

zxcdw wrote: post #189

cmccabe wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ad hominem.

...which is completely fine when is not used as an attempt to debunk the argument, but show that the information is biased. Any form of critique towards a biased source can always be countered with claims of it being an ad hominem argument - which it strictly speaking usually is - but that alone does not make the critique false or the original source any more reliable. As an example, many of the points Yossi makes ar…

Any form of critique towards a biased source can always be countered with claims of it being an ad hominem argument...

Well, any critique which consists solely of personal attacks can be countered that way. It's super effective!