APT Rust requirement raises questions

Post by uecker » Tue, Nov 25, 2025, 6:23 PM UTC

antonvs wrote: post #333

layer8 wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can’t change things faster than persuading the people that maintain the things. Over-the-top evangelism doesn’t work well for persuasion.

That was probably a mischaracterization on my part. I wouldn't consider rewriting almost everything useful that's currently in C or C++ to be over the top. That would be a net good. Posts that say "I rewrote X in Rust!" shouldn't actually be controversial. Every time you see one, you should think to yourself wow, the software world is moving towards being more stable and reliable, that's great!

Post by eggy » Tue, Nov 25, 2025, 6:26 PM UTC

antonvs wrote: post #309

travisgriggs wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I love and use rust, it is my favorite language and I use it in several of my OSS projects but I'm tired of this "rewrite it in rust" evangilism and the reputational damage they do to the rust community. Thanks for this. I know intellectually, that there are sane/pragmatic people who appreciate Rust. But often the vibe I’ve gotten is the evangelism, the clear “I’ve found a tribe to be part of and it makes me feel s…

Much of the drive to rewrite software in Rust is a reaction to the decades-long dependence on C and C++. Many people out there sit in the burning room like the dog in that meme, saying "this is fine". Most of them don't have to deal at all directly with the consequences involved. Rust is the first language for a long time with a chance at improving this situation. A lot of the pushback against evangelism is from peop…

Post by xscott » Tue, Nov 25, 2025, 6:30 PM UTC

gpm wrote: post #297

xscott wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fwiw, I didn't go looking for obscure examples to make HN posts. I've had three rounds of sincerely trying to really learn and understand Rust. The first was back when pointer types had sigils, but this exact declaration was my first stumbling block on my second time around. The first version I got working was `d`, and my first thought was, "you're kidding me - the right hand side is inferring it's type from the left…

> The first version I got working was `d`, and my first thought was, "you're kidding me - the right hand side is inferring it's type from the left?!?" I didn't learn about "turbo fish" until some time later. Tbh d strikes me as the most normal - right hand sides inferring the type from the left exists in basically every typed language. Consider for instance the C code some_struct a = { .flag = true, .value = 123, .st…

    // I don't think this flies in C or C++,
    // even with "designated initializers":
    f({ .flag = true, .value = 123, .stuff=0.456});

    // Both of these "probably" do work:
    f((some_struct){ .flag = true, ... });
    f(some_struct{ .flag = true, ... });

    // So this should work too:
    auto a = (some_struct){ .flag = true, ... };

Post by thesz » Tue, Nov 25, 2025, 6:32 PM UTC

simonask wrote: post #22

sidewndr46 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All compilers do anyways is translate from one language specification to another. There's nothing magical about Rust or any specific architecture target. The compiler of a "memory safe" language like Rust could easily output assembly with severe issues in the presence of a compiler bug. There's no difference between compiling to assembly vs. C in that regard.

The assumption here is that there exists an unambiguous C representation for all LLVM IR bitcode emitted by the Rust compiler. To my knowledge, this isn’t the case.

Post by steveklabnik » Tue, Nov 25, 2025, 6:34 PM UTC

JuniperMesos wrote: post #346

steveklabnik wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Syntax tends to be deeply personal. I would say the most straightforward answer to your question is "many people disagree that it is unreadable." Rust did build on the learnings of the past 20 years. Essentially all of its syntax was taken from other languages, even lifetimes.

The lifetime syntax was taken from OCaml but it has somewhat different semarics than OCaml. I honestly get a bit tripped up when I look at OCaml code (a language I'm a beginner at), and see ordinary parameterized types using syntax that suggests to me, from a Rust background, "woah, complex lifetime situation ahead!" I know that Graydon Hoare is a fan of OCaml and that it was a core inspiration for Rust, and I someti…