>
Accounts have to be created at some point, right? What is the issue?
Rust vs C Pitfalls
21–30 of 379 posts
Re: Rust vs C Pitfalls
#22If you're fighting, you've lost. The way to convert everyone to Rust you need to be better the the competition. Not just better as in "look at my features that will make your code safer". People may see the value but think "I get on just fine without the borrow checker so it isn't too important". You need to be far better then the replacement by providing the following: * Great Tooling ( IDEs ) * Great Libraries ( Ev…
On similar note, why Rust over Go? If I look at everything I used to write in C, I'd say 80% is well suited for Go and the rest I would fallthrough to Rust for. For the stuff where having a GC and slightly less control is OK, I don't see why I would want to use Rust. Rust is just much more complex and I prefer to keep it simple stupid (KISS). Basically, Go is good for 90% of what I used to use Java for and 80% of wha…
>On similar note, why Rust over Go?
I was going to say that rust has performance advantages over Go (due to GC), but look at benchmarks:
http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/compare.php?lan...
Go wins some and looses some, but it's all in the ballpark (except Binary trees [1] which it loses even to Java(!)).
It's true that rust is a new language, but so is Go.
[1]: I assume it's because it's a test of GC, but Go loses to Java (which, like Go, is a GC language)
Re: Rust vs C Pitfalls
#23The kind of safety guarantees Rust provides are, in my opinion, insufficient justification for experienced developers to move from C or C++. Rust has other features that make it generally superior in certain (many) contexts. The safety is a nice "add-on" effect, I suppose, but my view is that constantly hyping safety as the biggest selling point is missing a mark.
I completely agree. The biggest reason I haven't seriously tried Rust yet is because, despite all the vocal pro-Rust opinions we've all been inundated lately, I struggle to name a single interesting thing about the language apart from "safety". I wish the Rust evangelists would come to terms with the fact that to many developers memory safety is not a particularly important concern (for many different and often very good reasons) and talk more about other aspects of their language.
The tooling seems nice, but far from unique (D, Go and other languages are quite competitive there). It would be far more interesting to hear more about, say, traits (can it compete with C++ in compile time polymorphism?) and other technical aspects that make Rust stand apart from its competitors.
Re: Rust vs C Pitfalls
#24The kind of safety guarantees Rust provides are, in my opinion, insufficient justification for experienced developers to move from C or C++. Rust has other features that make it generally superior in certain (many) contexts. The safety is a nice "add-on" effect, I suppose, but my view is that constantly hyping safety as the biggest selling point is missing a mark.
If only these mythical experienced developers that never shoot themselves in the foot actually existed.
Infallible developers don't exist, but use cases where the particular class of errors eliminated by Rust's safety guarantees is insignificant certainly do.
Re: Rust vs C Pitfalls
#25>
That counts as a personal attack, and those are not allowed on HN—especially not against brand new users, which most new accounts belong to. Please don't do this again.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13266687 and marked it off-topic.
Re: Rust vs C Pitfalls
#26The kind of safety guarantees Rust provides are, in my opinion, insufficient justification for experienced developers to move from C or C++. Rust has other features that make it generally superior in certain (many) contexts. The safety is a nice "add-on" effect, I suppose, but my view is that constantly hyping safety as the biggest selling point is missing a mark.
If only these mythical experienced developers that never shoot themselves in the foot actually existed.
I'm terribly sorry you've never encountered an experienced developer who uses C or C++ before, or think we're non-existent, or that using extremes like "never" is a reasonable position instead of an incredibly terrible hasty generalization.
If there were as many blown off feet as comments on HN suggested technology even as it currently is simply wouldn't function.
Do you even understand how much mission and safety critical software is written in C? I think if you did you'd either have a constant panic attack (given your apparent belief that it's impossible to write "safe" C) or else have to adjust your world view a little bit.
Re: Rust vs C Pitfalls
#27A more interesting question for me is: is there any reason why would I want to use Rust over Haskell on any task where Haskell is "fast enough"?
Re: Rust vs C Pitfalls
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rust has by far the best tooling and documentation support out of all languages I've seen. Library support is great too, at least in that Cargo is an amazing platform and it's too easy to import C libraries. What do you feel is actually missing from Rust? Nothing has stopped me from replacing C entirely on the low end, and even the high end for application software development.
> What do you feel is actually missing from Rust? A solid NumPy-like library, for one.
Like you I need something like NumPy and SciPy for my work. I'd also like an IDE. An IDE goes a long way to helping me feel comfortable to use a language.
Re: Rust vs C Pitfalls
#29If you're fighting, you've lost. The way to convert everyone to Rust you need to be better the the competition. Not just better as in "look at my features that will make your code safer". People may see the value but think "I get on just fine without the borrow checker so it isn't too important". You need to be far better then the replacement by providing the following: * Great Tooling ( IDEs ) * Great Libraries ( Ev…
I think they are well aware of the problem at this point. Their best bet is to focus on high-performance networking software and networking ecosystem, where alternatives are still weak.
Re: Rust vs C Pitfalls
#30If you're fighting, you've lost. The way to convert everyone to Rust you need to be better the the competition. Not just better as in "look at my features that will make your code safer". People may see the value but think "I get on just fine without the borrow checker so it isn't too important". You need to be far better then the replacement by providing the following: * Great Tooling ( IDEs ) * Great Libraries ( Ev…
C is a very small and very portable language. Rust is not. I wondering why people bother comparing them at all.
Maybe Rust folks should make their own C backend for better integration with C compilers and have that portability, since LLVM folks decided to abandon theirs.