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

[oleid]

Did you notice that when Rust wins it still (almost) always uses more memory than C? (mem=>memory, right?)

That's correct. But to put it into perspective: it's almost always less memory than C++. So it's good enough, I presume.

[cb88]

(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.

[Rallos Zek]

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.

[Rallos Zek]

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.

[Anux]

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.

[marios]

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...

[Anux]

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-abstractions-in-rust-26d058eb1724?gi=b89a6c0f809

[mmstick]

Did you notice that when Rust wins it still (almost) always uses more memory than C? (mem=>memory, right?)

https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/fastest/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.

[CochainComplex]

Mh lack of USB mouse support is close to a PR disaster. A quite large group of potentially interested people will not pursue their initial curiosity to have a look at it.

[Anux]

I'm not an expert in Rust, nor have I claimed that. I'm just making some high-level observations.

Huh? I quoted marios, didn't I?

Either way, you are comming out as quite rude.

Probably adjusted to his level. As long as you don't write bullshit to discredit a certain group you don't have to fear me beeing rude to you.

If the benchmark allows different algorithms (i.e. algorithms have not been intentionally made the same), then it's an apples to oranges comparison.
If anyone here was making an assumption of a direct comparison, he is incorrect. Whithout taking int account differences in algorithms, any comparisons are irrelevant.

But what if a language enables you to use better algorithms that would have been to toublesome in other languages?