Rust is Software's Salvation • Hacker News Board

Re: Rust is Software's Salvation

#21

Post by jay_kyburz » Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 11:18 PM UTC

ZenoArrow wrote: post #12

falcolas wrote: post #5

The 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.

>"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." Look into the issues surrounding the borrow checker, that's one of Rust's main pain points. Long compilation times are another common issue. To Rust fans, I realise both of those issues will be addressed to some degree as MIR matures, but I'm l…

Another couple of flaws that could have a big impact on Rust.

- It will be super hard to hire for Rust for a long time. It would be a very bold move to write your app in Rust if you plan to grow your tech team anytime soon.

- I havn't tried learning Rust myself, but I have read that little that it can be a little tricky to start thinking the rust way (borrowing?) Plus the language "looks" hardcore. I wonder if that will put off new devs.

Re: Rust is Software's Salvation

#22

Post by jdright » Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 11:18 PM UTC

w8rbt wrote: post #16

rubiquity wrote: post #6

The amount of hype Rust is getting is not going to end well for Rust. This reminds me of Ruby during 2007-2010 where it went from Patron Saint to Scapegoat for every startup that failed using it. Ruby survived it, and I'm sure Rust will too, but that doesn't make it obnoxious for everyone else who inevitably gets swept up in the craze and crash. Programming is hard. Programming will always be hard. Better/newer tools…

I agree. C is fast because it can be unsafe. Skip all the safety checks and run like hell (if you need or want to). We don't care what size that array is, we just want to go really fast. Safety checks come with a performance cost. Rust claims to be faster than C and safer than C at the same time. That's not possible.

And it is not. It is not faster than C but it can be almost as fast someday.

Re: Rust is Software's Salvation

#23

Post by verletx64 » Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 11:18 PM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #13

cbrewster wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why marketing Rust implies that the community is trying to defend it. Honestly, I enjoy sharing with my experience with Rust because I personally enjoy writing in code with Rust and want to share that with others! Nobody is saying Rust is perfect or doesn't have tradeoffs.

> 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…

Hang on.

The original article that kicked off the 'Rust is mostly safety' article was a call for a change in the marketing material[1], away from the 'Rust is safe' narrative. It's not an attractive narrative (IMO) and the point that Klabnik was making was that Rust is more than 'just' safety.

'Rust is mostly Safety' was written in a sense disagreeing (depends on your interpretation) with Klabnik's article that Rust is much more than safety. Now, yes, these posts (namely the 'Rust is more than safety' and 'Rust is mostly safety' are not discussing the negatives of rust, absolutely, but it's not the scope of the posts to do so, it's not what that particular discussion is about and they should be exempted from this broad brush.

You've taken a quote from the Klabnik post, which is itself quoted from an initial release announcement, which is basically guaranteed to be a spot of marketing. As always, there is a time and a place for the discussion of trade offs and negatives.

A release announcement is not the place for this.

Nor is a discussion of changing the tone of the marketing of the language.

Now, finally turning my attention to the article in the post...well, that strikes me as a place to discuss some negatives. I am not super comfortable with basically listing all the cons of C and well, not even discussing the pros of Rust but presenting it as a panacea.

I think it doesn't quite hit the point of Klabnik's article which to me was more about stopping marketing based on what Rust stops you from doing and marketing Rust more on what it lets you do.

[1] http://words.steveklabnik.com/rust-is-more-than-safety

Re: Rust is Software's Salvation

#24

Post by w8rbt » Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 11:19 PM UTC

jdright wrote: post #22

w8rbt wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. C is fast because it can be unsafe. Skip all the safety checks and run like hell (if you need or want to). We don't care what size that array is, we just want to go really fast. Safety checks come with a performance cost. Rust claims to be faster than C and safer than C at the same time. That's not possible.

And it is not. It is not faster than C but it can be almost as fast someday.

The rust zealots say it is, "Better performance than C"

That's from the linked article 'Rust is Software's Salvation' (bullet point 3).

Re: Rust is Software's Salvation

#25

Post by averell » Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 11:20 PM UTC

w8rbt wrote: post #16

rubiquity wrote: post #6

The amount of hype Rust is getting is not going to end well for Rust. This reminds me of Ruby during 2007-2010 where it went from Patron Saint to Scapegoat for every startup that failed using it. Ruby survived it, and I'm sure Rust will too, but that doesn't make it obnoxious for everyone else who inevitably gets swept up in the craze and crash. Programming is hard. Programming will always be hard. Better/newer tools…

I agree. C is fast because it can be unsafe. Skip all the safety checks and run like hell (if you need or want to). We don't care what size that array is, we just want to go really fast. Safety checks come with a performance cost. Rust claims to be faster than C and safer than C at the same time. That's not possible.

That is very much possible in many cases. Zero cost abstractions exist: https://blog.rust-lang.org/2015/05/11/traits.html

Re: Rust is Software's Salvation

#26

Post by blowski » Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 11:21 PM UTC

rubiquity wrote: post #6

The amount of hype Rust is getting is not going to end well for Rust. This reminds me of Ruby during 2007-2010 where it went from Patron Saint to Scapegoat for every startup that failed using it. Ruby survived it, and I'm sure Rust will too, but that doesn't make it obnoxious for everyone else who inevitably gets swept up in the craze and crash. Programming is hard. Programming will always be hard. Better/newer tools…

I agree. We are making the same mistakes Fred Brooks talks about in "No Silver Bullets".

Re: Rust is Software's Salvation

#27

Post by EugeneOZ » Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 11:21 PM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #5

The 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.

nothing is scaring me as a programmer who use Rust, but I wish to see in such debates more people who at least tried to use Rust more than 2 months, before arguing :) And I just hope this "week of Rust" on HN will attract more people to try Rust. We have cookies and community is very friendly - welcome!

Re: Rust is Software's Salvation

#28

Post by bitwize » Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 11:22 PM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #5

The 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.

How about the fact that the vast bulk of machine-level software is written in C and therefore, by definition, unsafe? That scary enough for ya?

Re: Rust is Software's Salvation

#29

Post by nitroll » Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 11:22 PM UTC

w8rbt wrote: post #16

rubiquity wrote: post #6

The amount of hype Rust is getting is not going to end well for Rust. This reminds me of Ruby during 2007-2010 where it went from Patron Saint to Scapegoat for every startup that failed using it. Ruby survived it, and I'm sure Rust will too, but that doesn't make it obnoxious for everyone else who inevitably gets swept up in the craze and crash. Programming is hard. Programming will always be hard. Better/newer tools…

I agree. C is fast because it can be unsafe. Skip all the safety checks and run like hell (if you need or want to). We don't care what size that array is, we just want to go really fast. Safety checks come with a performance cost. Rust claims to be faster than C and safer than C at the same time. That's not possible.

It is, especially if these checks are done at compile time, not at runtime.

Re: Rust is Software's Salvation

#30

Post by jdright » Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 11:24 PM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #13

cbrewster wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why marketing Rust implies that the community is trying to defend it. Honestly, I enjoy sharing with my experience with Rust because I personally enjoy writing in code with Rust and want to share that with others! Nobody is saying Rust is perfect or doesn't have tradeoffs.

> 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)