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

Why Go and Rust Are Not Competitors (2015)

dave.cheney.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 102 posts

Re: Why Go and Rust Are Not Competitors (2015)

#41

Post by solidsnack9000 »

moomin wrote: post #12
vvanders wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, like the post about Discord processing images from yesterday underscored. If you need top tier performance you're going to have to reach for a language like Rust, C or C++ because without discrete control over your allocations and memory placement you will have something slower. C# is about the closest thing these days thanks to value types but even then Unity had to drop down to C++ to really get the performanc…

Yeah, but it seems to be fine for something like Docker.

Docker could also have been written in Java or Python, though, because most of the heavy lifting is provided by the kernel.

Re: Why Go and Rust Are Not Competitors (2015)

#42

Post by readittwice »

Scarbutt wrote: post #10
kgthegreat wrote: post #2

"Rust competes for mindshare with C++ and D for programmers who are prepared to accept more complex syntax and semantics (and presumably higher readability costs) in return for the maximum possible performance. For example, micro controllers, AAA game engines, and web rendering engines. Go competes for mindshare in the post 2006 Internet 2.0 generation of companies who have outgrown languages like Ruby, Python, and N…

Curious, what are the "high deployment costs of JVM based languages"? Don't must standard workloads simply deploy a jar?

I suppose that "high-deployment costs" also includes JVM/application startup and warmup.

Re: Why Go and Rust Are Not Competitors (2015)

#43

Post by jeremiep »

Scarbutt wrote: post #10
kgthegreat wrote: post #2

"Rust competes for mindshare with C++ and D for programmers who are prepared to accept more complex syntax and semantics (and presumably higher readability costs) in return for the maximum possible performance. For example, micro controllers, AAA game engines, and web rendering engines. Go competes for mindshare in the post 2006 Internet 2.0 generation of companies who have outgrown languages like Ruby, Python, and N…

Curious, what are the "high deployment costs of JVM based languages"? Don't must standard workloads simply deploy a jar?

Most likely some old myth regarding the JVM.

Its actually trivial to deploy and updates are just pushing one file; your uberjar. This is so much better than anything node/ruby/python/php have to offer.

I also feel much safer running code in a VM on the server than directly native where a single invalid dereference brings down the whole thing in a rain of fire.

Re: Why Go and Rust Are Not Competitors (2015)

#44

Post by zeveb »

systems wrote: post #27

They are both being used, where C and C++ were the only alternative Some of the points to be made here is that C and C++ are being used for a very wide range of applications So if you do compare Go and Rust, you will find distinct technical advantages and disadvantage Rust/Go are currently the C/C++ alternative

> They are both being used, where C and C++ were the only alternative

> Some of the points to be made here is that C and C++ are being used for a very wide range of applications

That's a really good point. C is an odd language: people used it to squeeze every ounce of performance out of machines, even when they didn't need to. E.g. an ls or cat written in C is almost certainly a premature optimisation. Even a program like Sendmail should probably have been written in something like Lisp or Go (had it existed) rather than in C (and anyone over a certain age knows the high price of Sendmail being written in C: vulnerability after vulnerability).

People were using C almost as a scripting language, which in retrospect is insane. Using it as a portable assembler to build the bulk of an OS, or at least the low-level parts of an OS, made sense — trying to use it for high-level programming was a mistake.

I write Go every day, but I'd like to take a look at Rust eventually. I wonder if decent Rust can be written as quickly as decent Go can.

Re: Why Go and Rust Are Not Competitors (2015)

#45

Post by vram22 »

oconnor663 wrote: post #37
kgthegreat wrote: post #2

"Rust competes for mindshare with C++ and D for programmers who are prepared to accept more complex syntax and semantics (and presumably higher readability costs) in return for the maximum possible performance. For example, micro controllers, AAA game engines, and web rendering engines. Go competes for mindshare in the post 2006 Internet 2.0 generation of companies who have outgrown languages like Ruby, Python, and N…

I remember reading somewhere that Go was originally intended to take over a lot of projects that are currently C++, and that it was kind of a surprise that more Go programmers ended up coming from languages like Python. If that's right, it might be fair to say Rust and Go were "originally" competitors, even if they aren't as much anymore :)

>I remember reading somewhere that Go was originally intended to take over a lot of projects that are currently C++, and that it was kind of a surprise that more Go programmers ended up coming from languages like Python.

Yes, I think that was in an article by Rob Pike, might have been his article titled "Less is exponentially more."

Edit: Found that article:

https://commandcenter.blogspot.in/2012/06/less-is-exponentia...

Excerpt: [ I was asked a few weeks ago, "What was the biggest surprise you encountered rolling out Go?" I knew the answer instantly: Although we expected C++ programmers to see Go as an alternative, instead most Go programmers come from languages like Python and Ruby. Very few come from C++. ]

Re: Why Go and Rust Are Not Competitors (2015)

#46

Post by jeremiep »

wokawoka wrote: post #17

MORE of these headlines instead of "Go is slower than Rust" or "Rust has more bells and whistles than Go". I develop in both Go and Rust. I use Go as main replacement for .NET/Java web tier...no need for install specific Java or .NET run-time library. I use Rust when there's heavy disk reads and writes...and I know it's a nightly job which should never segfault and never finish the execution since it crashed. GO = us…

If you want rapid prototyping I don't think you can beat Clojure, not even close.

Its really, really hard to beat the iteration cycle of a Lisp.

Re: Why Go and Rust Are Not Competitors (2015)

#47

Post by [deleted] »

vram22 wrote: post #45
oconnor663 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember reading somewhere that Go was originally intended to take over a lot of projects that are currently C++, and that it was kind of a surprise that more Go programmers ended up coming from languages like Python. If that's right, it might be fair to say Rust and Go were "originally" competitors, even if they aren't as much anymore :)

>I remember reading somewhere that Go was originally intended to take over a lot of projects that are currently C++, and that it was kind of a surprise that more Go programmers ended up coming from languages like Python. Yes, I think that was in an article by Rob Pike, might have been his article titled "Less is exponentially more." Edit: Found that article: https://commandcenter.blogspot.in/2012/06/less-is-exponenti…

[deleted]

Re: Why Go and Rust Are Not Competitors (2015)

#48

Post by systems »

k__ wrote: post #32
systems wrote: post #27

They are both being used, where C and C++ were the only alternative Some of the points to be made here is that C and C++ are being used for a very wide range of applications So if you do compare Go and Rust, you will find distinct technical advantages and disadvantage Rust/Go are currently the C/C++ alternative

But it seems to me that Go is used especially by non C/C++ devs.

well, people wrote servers in all sorts of languages

I like to think of it this way (image the line below is the range of software c/c++ is being used for, systems software on far left and apps on far right)

(systems)------------------C/C++------------------(apps)

People coming from left prefer Rust, people coming from the right prefer Go

Re: Why Go and Rust Are Not Competitors (2015)

#49

Post by iainmerrick »

AlexeyBrin wrote: post #7
themihai wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> make some things that needed to be done in C++ or Rust viable in Go. like "micro controllers, AAA game engines, and web rendering engines"? I highly doubt it! Swift 5+ might have a chance but Go has none(as it is now).

> Swift 5+ might have a chance but Go has none(as it is now) As long as it lacks Windows support Swift has no chance to be even considered for an AAA game engine.

That seems relatively easily fixed, if any biggish company cared enough to do it?

Re: Why Go and Rust Are Not Competitors (2015)

#50

Post by themihai »

abiox wrote: post #11
themihai wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> make some things that needed to be done in C++ or Rust viable in Go. like "micro controllers, AAA game engines, and web rendering engines"? I highly doubt it! Swift 5+ might have a chance but Go has none(as it is now).

c++ is used in a lot more than just "micro controllers, AAA game engines, and web rendering engines".

C++ is used for everything(including web development) so any language can replace C++ in various use cases.
Post reply on HN