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

Migrating from Go to Rust

corrode.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 544 posts

Re: Migrating from Go to Rust

#81

Post by tkiolp4 »

nemo1618 wrote: post #21

LLM writing tells are getting more subtle, but they still jump off the page for me, in particular the word "genuine:" "This is the area where Go genuinely shines, and it’s worth being precise about why" "the lack of GC pauses is a genuine selling point" "Humans are genuinely bad at reasoning about memory" "There are cases where the borrow checker is genuinely too strict" tbc I don't think the article was fully AI-gen…

I think the whole post is AI generated. The author could have given a draft as input and perhaps edited the output in a few places.

Take this paragraph as example:

> Go got generics in 1.18, and they’re useful, but the implementation has constraints (no methods with type parameters, GC shape stenciling, occasional surprising performance characteristics). Rust generics monomorphize, each instantiation produces specialized code with zero runtime cost. Combined with traits, this gives you real zero-cost abstractions.

Every sentence says something. Every sentence is important and holds its weight. I would expect that kind of writing from very specialized books or papers, not from a blog post. Also, it makes the post harder (and more boring) to read.

Re: Migrating from Go to Rust

#82

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

PyWoody wrote: post #78
ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> rusqlite (sqlite), clap (cli), ratatui (tui), and tauri (gui) Does any language, except like Java, exist with a standard library comprising matching that? Also, keep in mind that Tauri itself is 14 crates, where each one shows up in your build tree. https://github.com/tauri-apps/tauri/blob/dev/Cargo.toml And Ratatui is 6: https://github.com/ratatui/ratatui/blob/main/Cargo.toml

Python has sqlite3[0], curses (tui) [1], and tkinter[2] in the stdlib. [0] https://docs.python.org/3/library/sqlite3.html [1] https://docs.python.org/3/library/curses.html [2] https://docs.python.org/3/library/tkinter.html

Right. The famous stdlib where once good libraries go to die so you instead depend on the latest community replacement choice.

Also argparse for Clap:

https://docs.python.org/3/library/argparse.html

Re: Migrating from Go to Rust

#83

Post by hedgehog »

fpoling wrote: post #51
Animats wrote: post #6

I could see migrating from C or C++ or Python to Rust, for various reasons, but for web back-end work Go is a good match. I write almost entirely in Rust, but the last time I had to do something web server side in Rust, I now wish I'd used Go. The OP points out the wordyness of Go's error syntax. That's a good point. Rust started with the same problem, and added the "?" syntax, which just does a return with an error…

For me the main advantage of Go over Rust is compilation speed. Then compared with Go Rust still rely on many C and C++ libraries making it problematic to cross-compile or generate reproducible builds or static binaries. The minus side of Go is too simplistic GC. When latency spikes hit, there are little options to address them besides painful rewrite.

I've run into GC pauses, I think in many (most?) cases there is some class of bulky data that you can either move into slices of pointer-free structs (so the GC doesn't scan them) or off-heap entirely. The workload where GC is slow is also likely prone to fragmentation so whatever the language you'll have to deal with it.

Re: Migrating from Go to Rust

#84

Post by dillon »

nemo1618 wrote: post #21

LLM writing tells are getting more subtle, but they still jump off the page for me, in particular the word "genuine:" "This is the area where Go genuinely shines, and it’s worth being precise about why" "the lack of GC pauses is a genuine selling point" "Humans are genuinely bad at reasoning about memory" "There are cases where the borrow checker is genuinely too strict" tbc I don't think the article was fully AI-gen…

I have to agree here, but I'm not sure why. I don't have any clue what makes something sound AI generated or not. I got to about here "Go is clearly working for a lot of people," -- before I became suspicious that it was AI-assisted (but also maybe I'm wrong and it's not AI-assisted, I am very bad at telling). It's more about vibes (ironically) than anything else in particular. If something "sounds" AI-assisted then I instantly lose interest even if the article itself is otherwise fine. I wish people were more ok with writing their own thoughts with how it comes to them.

Re: Migrating from Go to Rust

#85

Post by tadfisher »

corndoge wrote: post #52
awesome_dude wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Package management is the bane of nearly every language/technology Nobody has "solved" it, and I don't think that there will ever be one (never say never, though, right?) For Go we rely on developers of libraries to adhere to the semver versioning scheme accurately, and we cannot "pin" versions (a personal bugbear of mine) There is a couple of workarounds - using SHAs not unlike the git commit hash to provide a pseud…

Nix solved it. Languages could choose to adopt Nix as their packaging system.

It did and didn't. Nix tools for building language-specific packages almost always wrap the language build tool/package manager. This can be easy or hard, depending on how onerous the build tool is for vendoring libraries.

What Nix and build tools need to agree on is a specification or protocol for "building a software dependency tree". Like, I should be able to say 'builder = cargo' in a Nix derivation and Cargo should be able to pick up everything it needs from the build environment. Alas, there is simply far too much tied up in nixpkg's stdenv for this to be viable, so we have magic stdenv builder behavior via hooks when a build tool is included in nativeBuildInputs.

Re: Migrating from Go to Rust

#86

Post by com2kid »

tptacek wrote: post #74

This is a weird document that is simultaneously trying to serve as a migration guide and an advocacy document for Rust. Ultimately, if you have to ask , the Rust vs. Go consideration boils down almost completely to "do you want a managed runtime or not". A generation of Rust programmers has convinced itself that "managed runtime" is bad, that not having one is an important feature. But that's obviously false: there a…

Us Node folks adapted typescript because we wanted static compiled types.

I wish TS had more of a runtime. The only thing I'm jealous of with regards to python is how seamlessly you can do JSON schema enforcement on HTTP endpoints. The Zod hoops are a constant source of irritation that only exists because the TS team is dogmatic.

Re: Migrating from Go to Rust

#87

Post by boccko »

mikeocool wrote: post #65
Animats wrote: post #6

I could see migrating from C or C++ or Python to Rust, for various reasons, but for web back-end work Go is a good match. I write almost entirely in Rust, but the last time I had to do something web server side in Rust, I now wish I'd used Go. The OP points out the wordyness of Go's error syntax. That's a good point. Rust started with the same problem, and added the "?" syntax, which just does a return with an error…

I was a big fan of go for a while. Though now that I have programmed more swift and rust recently, having a compiler that doesn’t protect against null pointer deferences or provide concurrency safety guarantees feels a little prehistoric. Though go certainly did a much better job than rust on the standard library front.

Standard library is something you have to maintain for all eternity, with identical API. It had been argued that some concurrency primitives like channels would have been better outside of std (for rust, to be clear). Once dependency management is solved, a small std is beneficial.

Re: Migrating from Go to Rust

#88

Post by tptacek »

com2kid wrote: post #86
tptacek wrote: post #74

This is a weird document that is simultaneously trying to serve as a migration guide and an advocacy document for Rust. Ultimately, if you have to ask , the Rust vs. Go consideration boils down almost completely to "do you want a managed runtime or not". A generation of Rust programmers has convinced itself that "managed runtime" is bad, that not having one is an important feature. But that's obviously false: there a…

Us Node folks adapted typescript because we wanted static compiled types. I wish TS had more of a runtime. The only thing I'm jealous of with regards to python is how seamlessly you can do JSON schema enforcement on HTTP endpoints. The Zod hoops are a constant source of irritation that only exists because the TS team is dogmatic.

I think Typescript is a perfectly cromulent language. I don't know it well but would seriously consider it for any problem that had a shape that admitted a dynamic language. There's a lot to be said for using dynamic languages, too!

Re: Migrating from Go to Rust

#89

Post by innocentoldguy »

Animats wrote: post #6

I could see migrating from C or C++ or Python to Rust, for various reasons, but for web back-end work Go is a good match. I write almost entirely in Rust, but the last time I had to do something web server side in Rust, I now wish I'd used Go. The OP points out the wordyness of Go's error syntax. That's a good point. Rust started with the same problem, and added the "?" syntax, which just does a return with an error…

I find Elixir's memory and threading models much more compelling than Go's for web services. There are many great libraries for Elixir as well, but if you need something else, Elixir makes rolling your own libraries very easy. I'd recommend giving Elixir a try, if you haven't already.

Re: Migrating from Go to Rust

#90

Post by galangalalgol »

tptacek wrote: post #74

This is a weird document that is simultaneously trying to serve as a migration guide and an advocacy document for Rust. Ultimately, if you have to ask , the Rust vs. Go consideration boils down almost completely to "do you want a managed runtime or not". A generation of Rust programmers has convinced itself that "managed runtime" is bad, that not having one is an important feature. But that's obviously false: there a…

I think I'd be ok with node via purescript? But in general I think rust and go people should join forces against the evils of dynamic typing. Isn't type hinting finally considered best practice now? I think that is effectively an admission that it was a defect. And even with good ginting it is still worse than inference. Inference can let plenty of code go untouched on type changes, while still protecting against unindended type changes.
Post reply on HN