Google's OpenSK Offers An Open-Source Rust-Written Security Key Implementation

[bug77]

I mean a language that won't be just another dead research project 10 years from now.

Well, you're just witnessing projects making use of Rust, that tends to be the exact opposite of a "dead research project", doesn't it?

[Tomin]

Well, you're just witnessing projects making use of Rust, that tends to be the exact opposite of a "dead research project", doesn't it?

I think he is predicting that Rust will become obsolete in 10 years. My prediction is that Rust will be still alive and kicking in 10 years. And I think it will have gained at least some more share. I hope it will be taught at universities or such then as well. Also I don't think C is disappearing anywhere in that time but it's probably still quite used 10 years from now too.

[xinorom]

Rust is all hype and no delivery. The toolchain is a joke. The build system is a joke. The compiler is dog slow. The claims of being "as fast as C" are lies. There's no ABI stability whatsoever and probably never will be.

Most importantly of all though, the killer feature (lifetimes) is massively underwhelming when put into actual practice. The argument Rustbots always use against C is that almost no one can be trusted to write correct C, but as the recent Actix-web debacle shows -- they can't be trusted to write correct Rust either. So the whole language is a dozen or more major disadvantages over using other, mature languages/compilers and the 1-2 supposed advantages are massively over-hyped pipe dreams.

[bug77]

Rust is all hype and no delivery. The toolchain is a joke. The build system is a joke. The compiler is dog slow. The claims of being "as fast as C" are lies. There's no ABI stability whatsoever and probably never will be.

Most importantly of all though, the killer feature (lifetimes) is massively underwhelming when put into actual practice. The argument Rustbots always use against C is that almost no one can be trusted to write correct C, but as the recent Actix-web debacle shows -- they can't be trusted to write correct Rust either. So the whole language is a dozen or more major disadvantages over using other, mature languages/compilers and the 1-2 supposed advantages are massively over-hyped pipe dreams.

Ok, ok, ok. You don't have a clue. We get it now.

[xinorom]

Ok, ok, ok. You don't have a clue. We get it now.

Ok, Rustbot. See you in the language graveyard in 10 years.

[ssokolow]

Rust is all hype and no delivery. The toolchain is a joke. The build system is a joke. The compiler is dog slow. The claims of being "as fast as C" are lies. There's no ABI stability whatsoever and probably never will be.

Most importantly of all though, the killer feature (lifetimes) is massively underwhelming when put into actual practice. The argument Rustbots always use against C is that almost no one can be trusted to write correct C, but as the recent Actix-web debacle shows -- they can't be trusted to write correct Rust either. So the whole language is a dozen or more major disadvantages over using other, mature languages/compilers and the 1-2 supposed advantages are massively over-hyped pipe dreams.

Nice job cherry-picking examples and criteria to fit a pre-existing conclusion.

C++ is all hype and no delivery. It has no ABI. Compatibility between different compiler implementations is a crapshoot. It has no dependency management. The build automation is prehistoric. The compiler is dog slow. The claims of being "as fast as C" are lies just like Rust's. (In fact, judging by the linked "best efforts of language enthusiasts to optimize beyond what is practical in real-world applications", it's slower than Rust.)

Most importantly of all though, everyone agrees that the killer feature (object-oriented programming) is a discredited hype-bubble from the 1990s that is directly at odds with how processor branch prediction and cache hierarchies work. The arguments C++bots always use is that modern C++ is safe in the hands of a good programmer but current Microsoft research shows no change in the ~70% rate of security vulnerabilities being memory-safety issues so that shows C++ programmers can't be trusted to use their language features correctly. So the whole language is a massive pile of ill-fitted ideas that even lauded educators who made a career of it can't remember its quirks after only a couple of years away from it. Not only has its own creator admitted that it's unreasonable to expect a single programmer to understand the entire language, he even admits its crap:

• I'm convinced that you could design a language about a tenth of the size of C++ (whichever way you measure size) providing roughly what C++ does.
  • Federico Biancuzzi (21 March 2009). Masterminds of Programming: Conversations with the Creators of Major Programming Languages. "O'Reilly Media, Inc.". p. 14. ISBN 978-0-596-55550-4.

• Within C++, there is a much smaller and cleaner language struggling to get out.
  • Stroustrup, Bjarne. The Design and Evolution of C++. pp. 207.. A later clarification adds, "And no, that smaller and cleaner language is not Java or C#."Bjarne Stroustrup's FAQ: Did you really say that?. Retrieved on 2007-11-15.

See what I did there?

[pigpen]

Makerdiary has a nifty nRF52840 dongle and case : https://store.makerdiary.com/product...-dongle-w-case

... and U2F implementation (in C) : https://wiki.makerdiary.com/nrf52-u2f/

[bug77]

Ok, Rustbot. See you in the language graveyard in 10 years.

Meanwhile, in the real world: https://blog.discordapp.com/why-disc...t-a190bbca2b1f

[xinorom]

Meanwhile, in the real world: https://blog.discordapp.com/why-disc...t-a190bbca2b1f

Yes, hipsters and brainlets use Node.js in droves too and we all know how garbage that is. Discord aren't exactly known for their technical prowess. Quite the opposite actually.

Anyway, I really wanted to like Rust. I spent a while using it for a small, test project. The language itself is pretty good. Lifetimes are awesome. What's not awesome is the toolchain. There are so many things that come for free with GCC/Clang that are impossible/unstable/unsupported in Rust.

Let's be honest here, you're clearly not a serious engineer. You seem like a standard Reddit moron who spends 99% of his time fanboying and advocating and 1% actually programming. Your knee jerk dismissal of real points just shows you don't know enough to actually address them.

It's a cold, hard fact that Rust has no stable ABI and the developers most in the know have stated (in a roundabout way) that the situation is unlikely to change. If you don't know why this is bad and a major roadblock to adoption, I suggest you spend more time studying and less time writing shallow dismissals to people with 100x more experience than you.

[ssokolow]

Anyway, I really wanted to like Rust. I spent a while using it for a small, test project. The language itself is pretty good. Lifetimes are awesome. What's not awesome is the toolchain. There are so many things that come for free with GCC/Clang that are impossible/unstable/unsupported in Rust.

Examples? Rust is advancing rapidly on that front and, even if that weren't the case, if you don't give examples, I can't point you to either the instructions that you missed because they really do still need better documentation or the issue tracker entry keeping track of requests to add them.

Let's be honest here, you're clearly not a serious engineer. You seem like a standard Reddit moron who spends 99% of his time fanboying and advocating and 1% actually programming. Your knee jerk dismissal of real points just shows you don't know enough to actually address them.

Given that you just ignored my demonstration of how your points could be thrown at C++ with more sense of authority (I even threw in some citations), and that you're attacking bug77's character and think it's a valid argumentative strategy, I don't think we need to give any credence to arguments you make unless you start coming with citations.