41–50 of 182 posts
Captain Obvious here with a public service announcement: Rust's safety guarantees dont extend to logic or protocol implementation problems or misconfigured security settings.the part of the article about service providers leaking creds or other info...Rust all the things and that will still happen. Some of this stuff is just too much. Also, why not work on lifetime and memory safety in a c based language? Rust looks…
The amount of hype Rust is getting is not going to end well for Rust. This reminds me of Ruby during 2007-2010 where it went from Patron Saint to Scapegoat for every startup that failed using it. Ruby survived it, and I'm sure Rust will too, but that doesn't make it obnoxious for everyone else who inevitably gets swept up in the craze and crash. Programming is hard. Programming will always be hard. Better/newer tools…
I agree. C is fast because it can be unsafe. Skip all the safety checks and run like hell (if you need or want to). We don't care what size that array is, we just want to go really fast. Safety checks come with a performance cost. Rust claims to be faster than C and safer than C at the same time. That's not possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nobody is saying Rust is perfect Err, the title of this article is "Rust is Software's Salvation". The previous one was "Rust is mostly safety". No discussion of trade offs, no negatives to be found. From the original article: "[Rust is] Technology from the past come to save the future from itself" > Not sure why marketing Rust implies that the community is trying to defend it The original article was a call for ma…
And this is getting nauseating even to these wanting to give it a try. I'm in the step of walking away and forget about it until the dirt settles down (and it becomes at least as fast as C/C++ or... even Go)
Rust should be roughly the same, speed-wise.
> Better performance than C That's a bold, yet generalized statement.
And, from most indications, incorrect. I think it's beat one C program on Alloth's benchmark game in processing time, but has been beat in the others. It performs on par with C++, on the other hand, for what that's worth.
Many of the others boil down to "explicit SIMD isn't in stable yet."
Rust is an overly complicated language that made the exact same deadly mistakes that c++ made: takes too long to compile and is too complex. Yes I get it, you're working on the compile times. You will never bring them down to under 1 second regardless of amount of libraries used, let's just say this once and for all. I add two crates 'hyper' and 'postgres-rs' in a 500 line(!!!) program and it's STILL a 2.8 second com…
The amount of hype Rust is getting is not going to end well for Rust. This reminds me of Ruby during 2007-2010 where it went from Patron Saint to Scapegoat for every startup that failed using it. Ruby survived it, and I'm sure Rust will too, but that doesn't make it obnoxious for everyone else who inevitably gets swept up in the craze and crash. Programming is hard. Programming will always be hard. Better/newer tools…
The echoes of Golang hype right now are somewhat ominous. A few years ago it was "concurrency primitives are going to change your life" and now it's "lifetime/ownership primitives are going to change your life." I am somewhat disappointed that we still feel the need to create entirely new toolchains and rewrite everything just to support what should be an incremental improvement. But at a certain point, a lot of the…
I've been doing C/C++ for close to 15 years now, I find that the borrow-checker not only helps with safety but also with guiding a good architectural foundation. Nothing keeps you from dropping into an unsafe block and cranking out very c-like code if you want as well.
All my green-field code now is Rust. Sure there's some hype but that's because people are genuinely excited about the language.
The amount of hype Rust is getting is not going to end well for Rust. This reminds me of Ruby during 2007-2010 where it went from Patron Saint to Scapegoat for every startup that failed using it. Ruby survived it, and I'm sure Rust will too, but that doesn't make it obnoxious for everyone else who inevitably gets swept up in the craze and crash. Programming is hard. Programming will always be hard. Better/newer tools…
The echoes of Golang hype right now are somewhat ominous. A few years ago it was "concurrency primitives are going to change your life" and now it's "lifetime/ownership primitives are going to change your life." I am somewhat disappointed that we still feel the need to create entirely new toolchains and rewrite everything just to support what should be an incremental improvement. But at a certain point, a lot of the…
I agree that "salvation" is a bit much, though.
For whatever hype Go had and may have, it's still a resoundingly successful language that's building meaningful stuff that improves people's lives. Sounds like a success to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you please tell more about borrow checker issues?
http://softwaremaniacs.org/blog/2016/02/12/ownership-borrowi...
I don't think it's description of an issue.
The amount of hype Rust is getting is not going to end well for Rust. This reminds me of Ruby during 2007-2010 where it went from Patron Saint to Scapegoat for every startup that failed using it. Ruby survived it, and I'm sure Rust will too, but that doesn't make it obnoxious for everyone else who inevitably gets swept up in the craze and crash. Programming is hard. Programming will always be hard. Better/newer tools…
The best defense is a good offense. What is scaring all of the Rust developers and users so badly that they feel the need to go on such an offensive hype campaign? It's worse than the phase Java went through when it hit its peak. I'll be honest. Until we start seeing some more balanced (frankly, I'd settle for nuanced) discussion about the compromises made to get Rust's strengths, I'm staying the hell away from it.
> Until we start seeing some more balanced (frankly, I'd settle for nuanced) discussion about the compromises made to get Rust's strengths, I'm staying the hell away from it.
If all you see about Rust is what hits Hacker News, you're probably not going to see much of that. The narrative about Rust's safety and the terrible state of software engineering today and dangers of all of the existing C and C++ code is a strong one that resonates with a lot of people, and so posts about that are likely to be voted up on HN. Posts about how Rust isn't a perfect language and has some flaws, well, maybe not so interesting, because every language has flaws, so there's nothing all that noteworthy there.
Also, FWIW, the post you're commenting on is written by someone who believes what they're saying in the post so strongly that they're writing an entire unix-like OS, including kernel and applications, in Rust. So it's no surprise that they're talking about what excites them about Rust and why they're using it to write a whole OS, rather than any flaws it might have.