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

Rust and C++ with Steve Klabnik and Herb Sutter [audio]

softwareengineeringdaily.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–59 of 59 posts

Re: Rust and C++ with Steve Klabnik and Herb Sutter [audio]

#51

Post by steveklabnik »

nurettin wrote: post #47
lifthrasiir wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here the conformance refers to the Ferrocene language specification [1], which is being developed to be something akin to ISO/IEC 14882 for Rust in the future. In fact, this specification and the Ferrocene toolchain is meant to be ISO 26262 or IEC 61508 qualified, so it directly addresses your concern. The comment posted by jamesmunns will do much better job in describing the exact details than mine (both comments ha…

> Quite a lot of people criticizing Rust for the lack of formal standards seem to assume that such standards will immediately improve something Formal standards aren't just for providing a spec to be used in alternative implementations or somehow proving that the syntax is logically sound. They are also the process of international representatives vetting for new additions to the language or breaking backwards compat…

The Rust Project also has international representatives vetting new additions and ensuring backwards compatibility.

Re: Rust and C++ with Steve Klabnik and Herb Sutter [audio]

#52

Post by edward28 »

eklavya wrote: post #31
on_the_train wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Rust would stop the politics pushing, I wouldn't be so afraid of it

Rust, the language can not push any politics. For me, technical stuff and politics are disjoint sets. I do not care at the least what the political leanings of people I work with are. To me it sounds as none of my business as what car they drive or what perfumes they like. What exactly are you afraid of?

Sure the language can't, but the people running the language can.

Re: Rust and C++ with Steve Klabnik and Herb Sutter [audio]

#53

Post by creata »

jb1991 wrote: post #44
tialaramex wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing that surface tutorials in either C++ or Rust won't get at, which might worry your residual C programmer is: how the fuck can any of this be implemented efficiently on the machine ? In C it often (too often actually but that's a different rant) feels as though what you wrote just translates directly into what the machine does, no surprises, so then it seems intuitively to make sense that this delivers good p…

You are forgetting yet another option which is widespread and common practice among serious C++ developers, which is to use the Compiler Explorer to see how the code directly translates into machine instructions. It is almost normal to always have this open next to your IDE if you care about performance. Note that most people who use Compiler Explorer don't actually know assembly that well, but you don't need to know…

> Note that most people who use Compiler Explorer don't actually know assembly that well

To add to this, if you hover over assembly instructions, it'll give you a description of what they do.

Re: Rust and C++ with Steve Klabnik and Herb Sutter [audio]

#54

Post by randomNumber7 »

joaquincabezas wrote: post #22

I've been a long time considering that I should learn Rust. I am using Python as main language (for Machine Learning tasks) so I am at the edge: Go with: C++, because I used to code in C (for embedded, 8-bit microcontrollers) when I was younger and also for its possible advantage for learning some CUDA (this last thing is mostly for fun) or Rust, because I have some trauma for kernel panics with bad memory management…

Imo C++ only makes sense if you commit enough time. If you are not planning to work with it as an expert I would look somewhere else.

I dont want to comment about rust, but personally I just don't like ideological people. Also some people seem to not understand, that the set of all valid computer programs is greater than the set of all programs that can be proved correct. It is a fact and can be proven.

Imo C# is a well designed language and would be the best start to learn more about a modern statically typed language. Swift is also interesting, but its mostly apple and has similiar ideologic problems like rust (e.g. pointers are evil).

Re: Rust and C++ with Steve Klabnik and Herb Sutter [audio]

#55

Post by shakow »

nurettin wrote: post #47
lifthrasiir wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here the conformance refers to the Ferrocene language specification [1], which is being developed to be something akin to ISO/IEC 14882 for Rust in the future. In fact, this specification and the Ferrocene toolchain is meant to be ISO 26262 or IEC 61508 qualified, so it directly addresses your concern. The comment posted by jamesmunns will do much better job in describing the exact details than mine (both comments ha…

> Quite a lot of people criticizing Rust for the lack of formal standards seem to assume that such standards will immediately improve something Formal standards aren't just for providing a spec to be used in alternative implementations or somehow proving that the syntax is logically sound. They are also the process of international representatives vetting for new additions to the language or breaking backwards compat…

Are those standards really useful though? I'm under the impression that Perl/Ruby/Python/etc. have done well enough without.

Re: Rust and C++ with Steve Klabnik and Herb Sutter [audio]

#56

Post by steveklabnik »

shakow wrote: post #55
nurettin wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Quite a lot of people criticizing Rust for the lack of formal standards seem to assume that such standards will immediately improve something Formal standards aren't just for providing a spec to be used in alternative implementations or somehow proving that the syntax is logically sound. They are also the process of international representatives vetting for new additions to the language or breaking backwards compat…

Are those standards really useful though? I'm under the impression that Perl/Ruby/Python/etc. have done well enough without.

Hilariously, Ruby actually has an ISO standard, and it is absolutely useless.

Re: Rust and C++ with Steve Klabnik and Herb Sutter [audio]

#57

Post by AnimalMuppet »

sylware wrote: post #42
pyrale wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am sorry, but this is propaganda: rust and c++ are the same evil: computer languages with an obscene syntax complexity. All computer languages are bad, but not all are bad equally, or for the same reasons. That's a fine point you're making.

Exactly. The metrics here, which seems to be alien to many real people or AI bots here, is that the syntax complexity is directly correlated to the difficulty to write an alternative _real life_ compiler of such language (not to mention the other issues...) The thing with c++,rust and similar syntaxes, is they are at an absurd and grotesque scale in complexity compared to, for instance, C99 syntax with some bits from…

> which seems to be alien to many real people or AI bots here

Take personal attacks somewhere else. They're against the site rules here.

>Yes those words are fair, and not aknowledging them, or trying to dodge this reality, is bluntly hypocrit or you are the victim here, brain-washed, and I advise you to take a deep breath and reflect on that matter in order to get a better perspective.

I have to see it your way, or I'm either brain-washed or a hypocrite?

> There is no argument or questioning here, only aknowledgement of a disturbing absolute truth and fair critism.

There's no questioning, only absolute truth?

The world is more complicated than you think, with more trade-offs and less black and white. You need to take a deep breath and get a better perspective.

Re: Rust and C++ with Steve Klabnik and Herb Sutter [audio]

#58

Post by lifthrasiir »

steveklabnik wrote: post #56
shakow wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are those standards really useful though? I'm under the impression that Perl/Ruby/Python/etc. have done well enough without.

Hilariously, Ruby actually has an ISO standard, and it is absolutely useless.

It has been fast-tracked from the Japanese standard JIS X 3017, and I think there was a strong incentive to standardize due to Ruby being the only current mainstream language originated from Japan. (I recall even the Ruby Association [1] is supported by Matsue, where Matz was born.)

[1] https://www.ruby.or.jp/en/

Re: Rust and C++ with Steve Klabnik and Herb Sutter [audio]

#59

Post by wild_pointer »

steveklabnik wrote: post #38
wild_pointer wrote: post #17

Expected a safety fight. The talk didn't deliver :(

I don’t want to have a fight, but this was recorded a few weeks before the safety thing became a big issue in the C++ world again, so that’s why it didn’t come up.

Yes, I get it, fighting isn't safe
Post reply on HN