Making The Case For Using Rust At Low Levels On Linux Systems

[andrei_me]

I wonder why suddenly Rust generates so much hype while Ada has been there for years.

Haskell inspired languages, like Scala, have becoming popular because the functional approach, which primes for immutability, allowing easier parallelism as one doesn't share mutable data structures.

[c117152]

I wonder why suddenly Rust generates so much hype while Ada has been there for years.

C like syntax.

Sure, the Ada compiler generates native binaries, but are they really comparable? Ada's feature set is close to Rust's main concepts?

They're about the same features wise.

On a side-note, the Rust people believe the previous failures of new systems languages was due to the syntax deviating too far from C-like high-school math. They're only partially right. While the syntax contributed immensely to previous failures, the real problem was all the burdensome features the computer science and math people shoved in there.
You see, electrical engineers can't be bothered with generics and functional programming. Their job has so much overhead regarding physics and regulations that they just can't remember all those complex tools. And seeing as EEs write and debug drivers, kernels written with languages higher then procedures and pointers never got any traction.

[Steffo]

Don't compare rust with Ada. Ada does runtime checks, rust compile time checks. And rust does not have a GC like Ada.

[tessio]

What about swift?

[andrei_me]

What about swift?

Not a system programming language, more like a app language

[F1esDgSdUTYpm0iy]

So in the author’s mind Rust is the way to go, just like systemd.
That’s not helping with my opinion of Rust.

O.o

... *Insert a very well known picture of Jean-Luc Picard here*

[FishB8]

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.

If you're using frameworks like Qt, you are not writing low-level system software and are by de facto outside the scope of the blog post's subject matter.

[F1esDgSdUTYpm0iy]

If you're using frameworks like Qt, you are not writing low-level system software and are by de facto outside the scope of the blog post's subject matter.

Agreed, with an addendum -- If you're using Qt, chances are even the currently chosen language (C++) might in fact be overkill.

[zanny]

If you're using frameworks like Qt, you are not writing low-level system software and are by de facto outside the scope of the blog post's subject matter.

http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/embedded-linux.html

There are plenty of use cases for Qt as a systems library framework. It is really useful just for its json / http daemon / dbus support in many cases, albeit you can get the same from boost with much less dependency bloat.

[ssokolow]

Immutable data structures are an efficient computational model of just a restricted subset of phenomena of the world.

That's why Rust lets you opt into mutability. (Rather than "const" like C/C++, Rust has "mut")