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

Was Rust Worth It?

jsoverson.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 736 posts

Re: Was Rust Worth It?

#261

Post by devman0 »

lolinder wrote: post #48
lucideer wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm having a hard time thinking of a non-Java package manager that was around at the time Rust came out that didn't have a single, global namespace The implication here is that namespaces in package managers weren't a known concept. Outside Java, NPM - probably the biggest at the time - not only supported them but was actively encouraging them due to collective regret around going single-global in the beginning. Co…

NPM added namespaces in version 2, which was released in Sep 2014, just 2 months before cargo was announced. I don't remember anyone making a big deal about using scopes in NPM for several years after that, it was just there as an option. The announcement blog post of v2 only gives two paragraphs to scoped packages and explicitly frames the feature as being for enterprises and private modules [0]: > The most prominen…

The left pad issue was kind of wild coming from the enterprise Java space. Supply chain attacks against open source software were already being taken pretty seriously, my last company had it's own Maven repository manager running that was used to stage and vet packages before they could be used in production.

Re: Was Rust Worth It?

#262

Post by wg0 »

synergy20 wrote: post #145

Use Rust like ADA, or use it for OS yes. For typical applications I am learning nim, which has python syntax, c speed and size, and could be memory safe too. I really feel nim deserves more love, for that you can balance coding-speed(write like python script), size , performance and security, and cal leverage c and c++ libraries without FFI, no other languages can have those at the same time.

Or crystal which looks more like ruby than Nim looks like python.

Re: Was Rust Worth It?

#263

Post by riku_iki »

willsmith72 wrote: post #68
Analemma_ wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a bit of an oversimplification, but a little quip I've used when talking about developing in Rust vs. other languages is, it's a question of where/when do you want the pain. In Rust, it's at development time (and hiring and ramp-up time); in C++ it's at runtime; and with GC languages it's at billing time when you have to pay for that extra compute and RAM. There's no way to get rid of the pain entirely.

if it were that simple, I'd take the "billing time" payment every time. Engineers' time is the greatest cost for just about any tech business

its depends on your app, if you run infra on 100k servers then win can be much larger than cost of engineer.

Or if you write mobile app and became slow and laggy, then you lose users.

Re: Was Rust Worth It?

#264

Post by devman0 »

beautron wrote: post #249
jmyeet wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm honestly astounded at how badly many languages have implemented dependency management, particularly when Java basically got this right almost 20 years ago (Maven) and others have made the mistakes that Java fixed. With Maven you get: 1. Flexible version (of requirements) specification; 2. Yes, source code had domain names in packages but that came from Java and you can technically separate that in the dependency…

> Later comes along Go. No dependency management at the start. There ended up being two ways of specifying dependencies. At least one included putting github.io/username/package into your code. That username changes and all your code has to change. Awful design. "github.io/username/package" is using a domain name, just like Java. Changing the username part is like changing the domain name--I don't see how this is any…

Slight difference is that it wouldn't break existing builds if you changed namespaces in Java. The maven central repo does not allow packages to be rescinded once they are published.

So that old version of package xyz will still resolve in your tagged build years from now even if the project rebrands/changes namespaces.

Re: Was Rust Worth It?

#265

Post by justincredible »

ayakang31415 wrote: post #16

I never programmed in Rust, but I had enough experience in C programming to know that segmentation faults are annoying to debug. I heard Rust prevents memory management problems at compilation level, so it forces you to create safer program. Given this, I want to ask Rust programmers here: For people who have no experience in managing memory at coding stage (basically programmer who have no experience in C-like langu…

[dead]

Re: Was Rust Worth It?

#266

Post by edflsafoiewq »

jowea wrote: post #178
MereInterest wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure. Looking through different Rust libraries, I tend to see three different styles, depending on previous programming experience. Each mimics the prior experience, with benefits. * Everything is a struct with concrete types. This is closest to C. It benefits from the improved memory safety, without sacrificing speed. * Everything is a Box >. This is closest to dynamic garbage-collected languages, but with v…

> * Everything is a Box >. This is closest to dynamic garbage-collected languages, but with vastly improved performance. Wait, reference counting everything all the time is faster than normal garbage collection?

It's probably slower, but unlike normal GCed languages, it's not actually anywhere close to everything.

Re: Was Rust Worth It?

#267

Post by devman0 »

ants_everywhere wrote: post #170
taberiand wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

URLs are well structured and unique, with a sensible default - sourcing the file from the internet - and ubiquitous processes for easily mapping the URL to an alternative location. I.e., when you're going to run the production build, the URLs are mapped to fetch from the vetted cache and not the internet. I don't see any downsides to allowing them as a source, or making them the default approach

> and ubiquitous processes for easily mapping the URL to an alternative location. This seems strange to me because the whole point of a Uniform Resource Locator is to specify where a resource can be located. It's a bit like saying "My project depends on the binder on shelf 7 in Room 42, sixth binder from the left. Except when I go into production, then use...." Don't tell me what binder it's in, tell me what it is. I…

This was a big annoyance for me back in the day when I was dealing with XML namespaces. URLs never made sense for that use case and too many tools tried to pull XSDs from the literal URL which was always generally out of date, some projects switch to URIs like tag uris or URNs and it was much better, imo.

Re: Was Rust Worth It?

#268

Post by wyldfire »

Conscat wrote: post #212
sapling-ginger wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That quite funny. Just like when some people formed a violent militant group to take down a violent tyranical dictatorship. Of course they would promise that they would absolutely de-arm right after the dictatorship has been overthrown, and immediately establish a peaceful democratic government with fair election. They absolutely would, would they? They would never turn into what they were formed to replace, would th…

If one tyranny has namespaces and the other doesn't, I'll prefer the former.

    pub use std::sic::semper;

Re: Was Rust Worth It?

#269

Post by wyldfire »

fsckboy wrote: post #232
fullarr wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait I thought only I could read the secret

yes, HN hides secrets automatically ******* is my password, but you can't see it. Type your password back, and I won't be able to see it. Try it!

I'm not sure it's working the way you described:

hunter2

Re: Was Rust Worth It?

#270

Post by metaltyphoon »

TillE wrote: post #254
JohnFen wrote: post #95

I'm learning Rust because it seems clear that it's going to be important professionally. I wish I loved it, I really do. I see the benefits. But, at least so far, it's one of the most unpleasant languages I've used. I keep hoping that as I gain proficiency, I'll stop disliking it, but as I climb higher on the learning curve, I'm not really warming to it. It's fine. It won't be the only language I'll be proficient in…

The lack of default/named function arguments is what still gets me. It's such an absolute basic programmer ergonomics feature shared by most popular languages; even C++ has had defaults since forever.

It would have been nice for Rust to have Default/named/optional function arguments because the proliferation of slightly differently named functions that do the same thing would go away.
Post reply on HN