I completely agree with all the reasoning. I've got 10+ years of C++ experience and while I appreciate C++11,14,17 for all they offer, I think Rust has a serious shot at being a serious contender to C/C++. I honestly hate debugging parallel and/or memory bugs. It takes so much time! Rust is likely to prevent most of these mistakes in the first place! But I will say that Rust is crazy complicated compared to C++. The ownership, lifetime, borrowing concepts are painful to grasp. The language also achieves OO in a really neat, although ad-hoc way, with Traits. It's not as obvious as C++ for doing some things like inheritance. I also do appreciate automatic dependency management in Cargo. It's more organized and uniform. You don't need to deal with third party build systems or unit testing frameworks.
I've already read most of the Rust book last week. Now I just need to an ice breaker project. An IRC bot or something like that would be perfect.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Making The Case For Using Rust At Low Levels On Linux Systems
Collapse
X
-
From the linked article
— daemons, services, command-line tools, that sort of thing.
- 2 likes
Leave a comment:
-
OTOH, Golang is already being used for lots of things, and not only to replace them
- 1 like
Leave a comment:
-
But even for user-space. I'm doing Qt5 and the Rust binding I found [1] has only one example and this TODO list:- More Qt modules support
- Global Qt functions support
- Qt enums support
- Qt generic container classes support
- Operator methods support
In other words it's not worth for me switching from a known language (C++11) with a good and known building system (cmake) with a good toolkit (qt5) to: an unknown but allegedly superior language (Rust) with an unknown building system (cargo or whatever) with inferior bindings to Qt5.
I'm trying to be unbiased here since I'm interested in good stuff, but Rust's pros and cons just don't do it for now for me.
[1] https://github.com/kitech/qt.rs
- 2 likes
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by davidbepo View Postif torvalds didnt accept c++ for being among other things, unstable (sounds like a joke but it isn't). do you think he wil accept rust?
i don't
Since Rust apparently has comparable performance to C++ but was meant to be secure and object-oriented from it's inception, it makes sense that Linus may be more accepting of it. But as stated by others, Linus really only deals with the kernel, where objects should be entirely avoidable. It would be interesting to see if Rust starts replacing applications, but I don't suspect Linus will be working with it much.Last edited by schmidtbag; 10 June 2016, 02:00 PM.
- 4 likes
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by davidbepo View Postif torvalds didnt accept c++ for being among other things, unstable (sounds like a joke but it isn't). do you think he wil accept rust?
i don'tGrover believes Rust is "extremely well-suited for low level Linux systems user-space programming."
- 2 likes
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by davidbepo View Postif torvalds didnt accept c++ for being among other things, unstable (sounds like a joke but it isn't). do you think he wil accept rust?
i don't
Torvalds is the kernel. This article is about the userspace programs, like the things in /bin /sbin and the /usr variants of those. This is more at a GNU/FSF/Distro decision than at Torvalds and the kernel itself. The same argument for Rust could apply to BSD and other systems as well as to just Linux.
- 5 likes
Leave a comment:
-
Making The Case For Using Rust At Low Levels On Linux Systems
Phoronix: Making The Case For Using Rust At Low Levels On Linux Systems
Linux kernel developer Andy Grover who is employed by Red Hat has written a lengthy blog post making the case for using the Rust programming language for low-level Linux...
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...Linux-ThoughtsTags: None
Leave a comment: