Earlier quoted context omitted.
Examples?
Doubly linked lists. Any cyclic data structure.
Both of those are a direct consequence of Rust's memory model, not a result of animus against C++.
DARPA project for automated translation from C to Rust (2024)
21–30 of 194 posts
Re: DARPA project for automated translation from C to Rust (2024)
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
Examples?
Doubly linked lists. Any cyclic data structure.
That's not at all a "we don't like C++" problem. That's "the chosen borrow-checking model makes cyclic structures hard, you have to do Rc/Arc and some manual management, or use unsafe and raw pointers". (Frankly, the latter is easier.)
Re: DARPA project for automated translation from C to Rust (2024)
#23One of, in my opinion, the largest problem with Rust is that they sought to solve two problems: 1. Memory / thread safety 2. They didn't like C/C++ And often times it feels like there is more focus on problem two than problem one. Quite a bit of idiomatic and safe (yes that does exist) C++ doesn't "translate" well to Rust without large amounts of rearchitecting. I'd focus more on converting C/C++ to languages nearing…
I don't think #2 is at all fair. I'm certainly of two minds about Rust and its ergonomics. But #2 seems to assume that C is some kind of default and canonical programming model, and to the extent that I like rust, its because they made different and internally consistent design choices.
Re: DARPA project for automated translation from C to Rust (2024)
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doubly linked lists. Any cyclic data structure.
That's not at all a "we don't like C++" problem. That's "the chosen borrow-checking model makes cyclic structures hard, you have to do Rc/Arc and some manual management, or use unsafe and raw pointers". (Frankly, the latter is easier.)
Ref counting doesn’t work for cyclic data structures
Re: DARPA project for automated translation from C to Rust (2024)
#25Shouldn't they change it to WARPA to reflect the Dept of War name change?
or even better: WARPATH: War Advanced Research Projects Agency for Technology and Hardware
Say what you will about this administration, I do favor the more honest name. Defense carried connotations of peace and passivity that did no more than obfuscate the underlying nature of the military industrial complex. Maybe people will be more reluctant to profit from business with the Department of War, and maybe fewer individuals will benefit from spinning "Defense" industry as anything other than trade in arms and armor intended for state sanctioned violence. Something about "Defense Industry" just carried a whole lot of "ick" in modern parlance.
Re: DARPA project for automated translation from C to Rust (2024)
#26One of, in my opinion, the largest problem with Rust is that they sought to solve two problems: 1. Memory / thread safety 2. They didn't like C/C++ And often times it feels like there is more focus on problem two than problem one. Quite a bit of idiomatic and safe (yes that does exist) C++ doesn't "translate" well to Rust without large amounts of rearchitecting. I'd focus more on converting C/C++ to languages nearing…
Examples?
Syntax is different any many places for no apparent reason
Re: DARPA project for automated translation from C to Rust (2024)
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Examples?
Doubly linked lists. Any cyclic data structure.
While I think this is Rust's biggest flaw, this doesn't stem from any particular hatred of C/C++. This is related to memory safety, as it is very difficult to reason about memory lifetimes of object graphs with cycles.
Re: DARPA project for automated translation from C to Rust (2024)
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s sad you are getting downvoted for simply expressing what seems to be a genuine opinion.
I am getting tired of participating in this community for many reasons, but this specific reason is one of the most tiring ones. But there's seemingly nowhere else to go, but maybe small Discord servers where you can meet people and share honest opinions that are real and agree to disagree without penalty. Everyone should feel free to express harmless opinions. Edit: Whoever downvoted me for this comment is proving m…
I didn’t downvote you, but I can see why your original unedited comment was downvoted. It provided no actionable objections, e.g. no examples.
Re: DARPA project for automated translation from C to Rust (2024)
#29One of, in my opinion, the largest problem with Rust is that they sought to solve two problems: 1. Memory / thread safety 2. They didn't like C/C++ And often times it feels like there is more focus on problem two than problem one. Quite a bit of idiomatic and safe (yes that does exist) C++ doesn't "translate" well to Rust without large amounts of rearchitecting. I'd focus more on converting C/C++ to languages nearing…
> They didn't like C/C++
Riiiight. You do realize they made syntax similar to C/C++ on purpose to ease Mozilla's C/C++ programmers into it.
It's not that they didn't like it; it's that C/C++ is about as disinterested in memory/thread safety as you can get. It's been what, ten years since Rust became 1.0? And the safety needle of C++ hasn't budged a femtometer.
> Quite a bit of idiomatic and safe (yes that does exist) C++
Sure, so does legible Brainfuck. However, it's extremely challenging to write it. It usually takes years and years of effort, chasing down obscure bugs.
> Like converting C++ to C#.
If you can take GC pause and not wince, sure, go for it. Not everyone can take that luxury.
Re: DARPA project for automated translation from C to Rust (2024)
#30Maybe I just need to spend more time with Rust and deal with it, but I'm sad the industry desires to rally around it. Despite the specific subset of protections it aims to provide, I have always had issues with how ugly the language is. To a lesser extent, I have a problem with the protections it doesn't provide and leads developers to think they're writing safe software that in specific cases, actually just promotes…
I’d suggest reading their (free, online) book if you haven’t already, that’s what motivated me to actually try using it. It sells its core features pretty well and eased me into it better than just trying to grok the syntax. What kept me using it is how annoyingly frequently my code would _just work_ once I got it compiling, which I could often get to pretty quickly by catching errors early with a linter. I’d highly…
As we transition to an era of LLM-generated code, it also means that once the LLM gets it to compile, it likely works.