91–100 of 853 posts
Not a system programmer -- at this point, does C hold any significant advantage over Rust? Is it inevitable that everything written in C is going to be gradually converted to safer languages?
Shitloads of already existing libraries. For example I'm not going to start using it for Arduino-y things until all the peripherals I want have drivers written in Rust.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is why most of the world has not been using c/c++ for decades.
I'm not on the Rust bandwagon, but statements like this make absolutely no sense. A lot of software was written in C and C++ because they were the only option for decades. If you couldn't afford garbage collection and needed direct control of the hardware there wasn't much of a choice. Had their been "safer" alternatives, it's possible those would have been used instead. It's only been in the last few years we've see…
Not a system programmer -- at this point, does C hold any significant advantage over Rust? Is it inevitable that everything written in C is going to be gradually converted to safer languages?
A lot of C's popularity is with how standard and simple it is. I doubt Rust will be the safe language of the future, simply because of its complexity. The true future of "safe" software is already here, JavaScript. There will be small niches leftover: * Embedded - This will always be C. No memory allocation means no Rust benefits. Rust is also too complex for smaller systems to write compilers. * OS / Kernel - Nearly…
only in interpreter mode.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is not a single major browser written in Rust. Even Ladybird, a new project, adopted C++.
Firefox and Chrome already contain significant amounts of Rust code, and the proportion is increasing.
https://github.com/mozilla-firefox/firefox : JavaScript 28.9%, C++ 27.9%, HTML 21.8%, C 10.4%, Python 2.9%, Kotlin 2.7%, Other 5.4%
How significant?
Not a system programmer -- at this point, does C hold any significant advantage over Rust? Is it inevitable that everything written in C is going to be gradually converted to safer languages?
A lot of C's popularity is with how standard and simple it is. I doubt Rust will be the safe language of the future, simply because of its complexity. The true future of "safe" software is already here, JavaScript. There will be small niches leftover: * Embedded - This will always be C. No memory allocation means no Rust benefits. Rust is also too complex for smaller systems to write compilers. * OS / Kernel - Nearly…
Memory safety applies to all memory. Not just heap allocated memory.
This is a strange claim because it's so obviously false. Was this comment supposed to be satire and I just missed it?
Anyway, Rust has benefits beyond memory safety.
> Rust is also too complex for smaller systems to write compilers.
Rust uses LLVM as the compiler backend.
There are already a lot of embedded targets for Rust and a growing number of libraries. Some vendors have started adopting it with first-class support. Again, it's weird to make this claim.
> Nearly all of the relevant code is unsafe. There aren't many real benefits.
Unsafe sections do not make the entire usage of Rust unsafe. That's a common misconception from people who don't know much about Rust, but it's not like the unsafe keyword instantly obliterates any Rust advantages, or even all of its safety guarantees.
It's also strange to see this claim under an article about the kernel developers choosing to move forward with Rust.
> High Frequency Traders - They would care about the standard library except they are moving on from C++ to VHDL for their time-sensitive stuff. I would bet they move to a garbage-collected language for everything else, either Java or Go.
C++ and VHDL aren't interchangeable. They serve different purposes for different layers of the system. They aren't moving everything to FPGAs.
Betting on a garbage collected language is strange. Tail latencies matter a lot.
This entire comment is so weird and misinformed that I had to re-read it to make sure it wasn't satire or something.
Oh dear can you imagine the crushing complexity of a future Rust kernel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every system under the Sun has a C compiler. This isn't remotely true for Rust. Rust is more modern than C, but has it's own issues, among others very slow compilation times. My guess is that C will be around long after people will have moved on from Rust to another newfangled alternative.
> Every system under the Sun has a C compiler... My guess is that C will be around long after people will have moved on from Rust to another newfangled alternative. This is still the worst possible argument for C. If C persists in places no one uses, then who cares?
C will continue to be used because it always has been and always will be available everywhere, not only places no one uses :/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can’t think of many real world production systems which don’t have a rust target. Also I’m hopeful the GCC backend for rustc makes some progress and can become an option for the more esoteric ones
It's mostly embedded / microcontroller stuff. Things that you would use something like SDCC or a vendor toolchain for. Things like the 8051, stm8, PIC or oddball things like the 4 cent Padauk micros everyone was raving about a few years ago. 8051 especially still seems to come up from time to time in things like the ch554 usb controller, or some NRF 2.4ghz wireless chips.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can’t think of many real world production systems which don’t have a rust target. Also I’m hopeful the GCC backend for rustc makes some progress and can become an option for the more esoteric ones
There aren't really any "systems programming" platforms anywhere near production that doesn't have a workable rust target. It's "embedded programming" where you often start to run into weird platforms (or sub-platforms) that only have a c compiler, or the rust compiler that does exist is somewhat borderline. We are sometimes talking about devices which don't even have a gcc port (or the port is based on a very old ve…