The Hare programming language

Post by kzrdude » Mon, May 02, 2022, 7:03 PM UTC

nyanpasu64 wrote: post #63

zozbot234 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However I find it makes it too difficult to mutate through shared references It's not that difficult, you just need to use UnsafeCell or one of its safe derivatives (each of which has some potential runtime overhead) to keep the semantics tractable.

One of the strange things about Rust is the &UnsafeCell /*mut T dichotomy. &UnsafeCell is easier to work with, and you can soundly acquire &mut T as long as they never overlap, but you can't turn a Box > into a &UnsafeCell and back to a Box > to delete it, because provenance or something. *mut T is harder to work with, this is UB according to miri since you didn't specify `&mut x as *mut i32 as *const i32`: let mut x…

Post by [deleted] » Fri, May 06, 2022, 3:58 PM UTC

discreteevent wrote: post #61

zozbot234 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> C++ definitely isn't it, and while Rust does bring significant advances in this field, it's a very large and complicated language. It really isn't. Not compared to C++, at least. Or to managed language runtimes, which are just as "large and complicated", only beneath the hood.

Putting things "below the hood" with as few leaks as possible is one of the key ways of managing complexity. So if a language can do this for a certain set of use cases then it's worth using for those use cases. Everything becomes quicker and more productive. There's a reason people that few people nowadays write the server side of web applications in C++. Rust isn't a huge improvement for that use case compared to a…