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

My “grand vision” for Rust

blog.yoshuawuyts.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 323 posts

Re: My “grand vision” for Rust

#31

Post by pjmlp »

zozbot234 wrote: post #9
ozgrakkurt wrote: post #4

This sounds insane at this point. The language already has too many features. Would be cool if all these people with amazing visions could move it elsewhere. Rust is fast tracking being as bad as c++ in terms of just garbage in it. IMO the worst thing about c++ isn't that it is unsafe but it is extemely difficult to learn to a satisfying degree. This is already kind of feels true for Rust and it will be surely true i…

> The language already has too many features. That's actually the point. Many of these additions can be phrased as unifying existing features and allowing them to be used in previously unusable ways and contexts. There's basically no real increase in user-perceived complexity. The Rust editions system is a key enabler of this, and C++ has nothing comparable.

It has clang tidy, -std=lang-version, and preprocessor that is version aware.

Rust editions don't cover all use cases that one can think of regarding language evolution, and requires full access to source code.

Re: My “grand vision” for Rust

#32

Post by pjmlp »

satvikpendem wrote: post #13
pjmlp wrote: post #3

Reposting my comment from Reddit, I had some Scala 3 feelings when reading the vision, I hope Rust doesn't gets too pushy with type systems ideas. That is how we end with other ecosystems doubling down in automatic memory management with a good enough ownership model for low level coding, e.g. Swift 6, OxCaml, Chapel, D, Linear Haskel, OCaml effects,... Where the goal is that those features are to be used by experts,…

I doubt those languages would have the same level of traction as Rust, especially now that Rust has already gotten said traction over the past decade with even the Linux kernel using them. It's more likely that Rust will be written as today and then these extra features are added for more type safety in certain functions as like I said in another comment I doubt people are going to write type contracts for every sing…

Apparently you missed Swift.

Linux kernel adoption of Rust hasn't been a smooth ride, exactly because of its type system among C folks.

It is only happening because the likes of Google and Microsoft want to see it through.

Re: My “grand vision” for Rust

#33

Post by pjmlp »

satvikpendem wrote: post #20
MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes Haskell, the reasonable centrist position in language design.

Compared to the other languages listed in this thread, it definitely is, and it has production systems unlike them. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47259148

Ever heard of Apple, Facebook, Jane Street, HP?

Re: My “grand vision” for Rust

#34

Post by pjmlp »

LiamPowell wrote: post #25
metaltyphoon wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I know people here hate design-by-committee, but historically it's led to some very cohesive languages. C++ is not cohesive at all

I didn't say this applies to every committee, but I do think the opposite applies to almost every "try it and see" language. Examples of cohesive languages designed by committees would be Ada and Haskell.

Haskell is anything but cohesive, depending on which feature flags are enabled on GHC, or any other compiler.

Re: My “grand vision” for Rust

#35

Post by pjmlp »

Animats wrote: post #24

This may be too much advanced type theory for a useful language. You can go all the way to formal verification. This is not enough for that. Or you can stop at the point all memory error holes have been plugged. That's more useful. You can go way overboard with templates/macros/traits/generics. Remember C++ and Boost. I understand that Boost is now deprecated. I should work some more on my solution to the back-refere…

Boost is as actual as ever.

Also the way nowadays is with constexpr, templates, and around the corner, static reflection.

Re: My “grand vision” for Rust

#36

Post by jstanley »

zozbot234 wrote: post #9
ozgrakkurt wrote: post #4

This sounds insane at this point. The language already has too many features. Would be cool if all these people with amazing visions could move it elsewhere. Rust is fast tracking being as bad as c++ in terms of just garbage in it. IMO the worst thing about c++ isn't that it is unsafe but it is extemely difficult to learn to a satisfying degree. This is already kind of feels true for Rust and it will be surely true i…

> The language already has too many features. That's actually the point. Many of these additions can be phrased as unifying existing features and allowing them to be used in previously unusable ways and contexts. There's basically no real increase in user-perceived complexity. The Rust editions system is a key enabler of this, and C++ has nothing comparable.

https://xkcd.com/927/

Re: My “grand vision” for Rust

#37

Post by tcfhgj »

jcranmer wrote: post #19
ozgrakkurt wrote: post #4

This sounds insane at this point. The language already has too many features. Would be cool if all these people with amazing visions could move it elsewhere. Rust is fast tracking being as bad as c++ in terms of just garbage in it. IMO the worst thing about c++ isn't that it is unsafe but it is extemely difficult to learn to a satisfying degree. This is already kind of feels true for Rust and it will be surely true i…

You're not wrong here. Not that I'm entirely up-to-speed on all of the deep Rust discussions, but the sense I have of the language evolution is that while there is definitely a loud contingent of people pushing for a lot of the complexity of full effect systems or linear types, these sorts of proposals aren't actually all that likely to actually move forward in the language. (I should note that of all of the features…

What complexity?

Re: My “grand vision” for Rust

#38

Post by tcfhgj »

fabiensanglard wrote: post #7
ozgrakkurt wrote: post #4

This sounds insane at this point. The language already has too many features. Would be cool if all these people with amazing visions could move it elsewhere. Rust is fast tracking being as bad as c++ in terms of just garbage in it. IMO the worst thing about c++ isn't that it is unsafe but it is extemely difficult to learn to a satisfying degree. This is already kind of feels true for Rust and it will be surely true i…

I agree that the complexity is getting scary. They keep on adding more and more stuff and it is hard to follow.

Could you expand a bit more?

Re: My “grand vision” for Rust

#39

Post by raphinou »

arrty88 wrote: post #5

I would love to have a use case to learn and write rust today. But i am deep in node and go services for my employer. Previously wrote java and c#. What are people writing in rust today?

I'm working on a multisig sign-off solution, with the first use case being file downloads like GitHub releases authentication: https://github.com/asfaload/asfaload

I'm coming from F# and find rust a good compromise: great type safety (though I prefer the F# language) with an even better ecosystem. It can also generate decently sized statically compiled executables, useful for CLI tools, and the library code I wrote should be available to mobile apps (to be developed).

Re: My “grand vision” for Rust

#40

Post by ChadNauseam »

arrty88 wrote: post #5

I would love to have a use case to learn and write rust today. But i am deep in node and go services for my employer. Previously wrote java and c#. What are people writing in rust today?

I'm having fun using it to make websites. Rust→WASM works really well. Definitely a very enjoyable way to make web apps. I've been trying to think how I can contribute to the ecosystem, seeing as I enjoy it so much. Rust gives you a control over memory that is impossible to replicate in javascript, and which allows much more performant code
Post reply on HN