Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rust-Written Redox OS 0.8 Released With i686 Support, Audio & Multi-Display Working

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #71
    Originally posted by xfcemint View Post

    (I won't even take a look at the benchmark)

    Since times immemorial, there has been a tradeoff of memory usage vs. speed. Perhaps, on one nice sunny day, a "slider" will be added to compiler options so that the tradeoff can be precisely adjusted, but until that sunny day arrives, there are going to be some discrepancies in benchmarks caused by our inability to precisely set the tradeoff.
    The only reason rust uses more memory sometimes is to guarantee safety... you can do unsafe things though and get identical memory usage.

    Comment


    • #72
      Originally posted by Waethorn View Post

      The better OS's are always the ones that never got finished. Plan9, CP/M, Longhorn....
      Meh... None of the above were better.


      Ditto for IA-64.
      IA-64 was garbage, from using an VLIW ISA in a General Purpose processor, to being slower and hotter than anything else on the market. IA-64 was a called a failure by many before it was even released.

      Comment


      • #73
        Originally posted by cooperate View Post
        It’s MIT licensed, so it’s not going anywhere.
        Yeah it's a shame, hard to get exited about anything that's under a Cuck license.

        Comment


        • #74
          Originally posted by cl333r View Post
          Did you notice that when Rust wins it still (almost) always uses more memory than C? (mem=>memory, right?)
          Yes, while you can be super efficient with (re)using pointers in C, in Rust it almost allways results in a copy of the data. The C version probably has some memory/concurrency bugs while the Rust one doesn't.

          Comment


          • #75
            Originally posted by cooperate View Post
            It’s MIT licensed, so it’s not going anywhere.
            I'm not an expert on that subject, but in my humble opinion GPL would be a better choice. (compare: Linux vs. BSD).

            It's never too late to change the course...

            Comment


            • #76
              Originally posted by cb88 View Post

              The only reason rust uses more memory sometimes is to guarantee safety... you can do unsafe things though and get identical memory usage.
              Looks like the 0 cost safety, rustafarians are so proud of, are costlier than advertised...

              Comment


              • #77
                Originally posted by marios View Post
                Looks like the 0 cost safety, rustafarians are so proud of, are costlier than advertised...
                Did someone actually say that? I think it's pretty obvious that you can't get something for nothing. Most likely is that this "safety costs 0" is used in some methaphorical meaning: like, costs commonly being negligible.

                Comment


                • #78
                  Originally posted by marios View Post
                  Looks like the 0 cost safety, rustafarians are so proud of, are costlier than advertised...
                  You are mixing stuff up. Instead of making a complete fool of yourself in public you could read up on what rust means by zero cost abstractions. A little hint ownership is not a high level abstraction but a programming model.

                  https://itnext.io/zero-cost-abstract...gi=b89a6c0f809

                  Comment


                  • #79
                    Originally posted by Anux View Post
                    You are mixing stuff up. Instead of making a complete fool of yourself in public you could read up on what rust means by zero cost abstractions. A little hint ownership is not a high level abstraction but a programming model.

                    https://itnext.io/zero-cost-abstract...gi=b89a6c0f809
                    I'm not an expert in Rust, nor have I claimed that. I'm just making some high-level observations.

                    I have no idea what is the exact definition of "0 cost" in Rust, and I'm not interested in finding out. The real question here is: by the definition that you have just posted as a link, are you perhaps misinterpreting what "0 costs" means?

                    Either way, you are comming out as quite rude.

                    Comment


                    • #80
                      Originally posted by cl333r View Post
                      Did you notice that when Rust wins it still (almost) always uses more memory than C? (mem=>memory, right?)
                      https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.de...test/rust.html

                      That is not necessarily true. In many of the benchmarks Rust is equivalent to C, and sometimes even uses less memory and CPU. Keep in mind that memory consumption has more to do with the algorithms used than the language itself. Rust's memory safety does not play any role in the amount of memory used.

                      Also, the kind of code submitted to a competitive benchmark competition is very different from the kind of code in a practical real world project. There's a lot of real world scenarios where it's easy to write an efficient algorithm in Rust that would otherwise be too dangerous to attempt in C while still having some resemblance of reliability. It also really helps out a lot that Rust's de facto string type is UTF-8 rather than null-terminated, which makes iterating and splitting possible without reallocations.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X