Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GCC Rust Approved By Steering Committee, Likely To Land For GCC 13

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

  • #31
    I don't know who uses VSCode with Rust (I imagine a lot of people do) but rust-analyzer specifically shows a checkmark next to package imports when viewing a cargo.toml file if the package is up-to-date, or a red X if the package is out of date.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Sin2x View Post
      Should have been Zig (or nothing, nothing works for me too). Rust is an overhyped buzzword pushed by the corporations and their zombified zealots.
      I used to believe like you that C is the only way. But Rust programmers are actually smart and fix lot's of things. So I've learned to accept them.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Ironmask View Post
        I don't know who uses VSCode with Rust (I imagine a lot of people do) but rust-analyzer specifically shows a checkmark next to package imports when viewing a cargo.toml file if the package is up-to-date, or a red X if the package is out of date.
        ...and I imagine the rust-analyzer integration for coc.nvim would do the same thing, given that the purpose of coc.nvim is to bring support for VSCode's extensions to the LSP to sufficiently new Vim or Neovim versions.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by babali View Post
          What's the benefit of having a GCC port?
          1. GCC has more backends than LLVM
          2. GCC usually produces slightly faster code than LLVM (but not consistently, check recent Phoronix benchmarks)
          3. rustc is notoriously slow... hopefully gccrs will be faster? Hard to tell until they reach feature parity.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by phoronix View Post
            missing features like the Rust borrow checker ...
            I thought the borrow checker is an integral part of rust, how can it even work without that?

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Mordrag View Post

              I would guess you have done extensive analysis on Rust and can enlighten us all why Rust is so bad ?
              If you wanted to be enlightened, you would already be -- but you don't -- because you a blind zealot which I have already pointed out.

              There has been a plethora of analyses of why Rust is a poor imitation of C++, my favourite one is from Drew DeVault who got so fed up with Rust fanatics preaching on every corner, he created his own systems language:

              https://drewdevault.com/2019/03/25/R...placement.html

              https://harelang.org/
              Last edited by Sin2x; 12 July 2022, 03:36 AM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Sin2x View Post

                If you wanted to be enlightened, you would already be -- but you don't -- because you a blind zealot which I have already pointed out.

                There has been a plethora of analyses of why Rust is a poor imitation of C++, my favourite one is from Drew DeVault who got so fed up with Rust fanatics preaching on every corner, he created his own systems language:

                https://drewdevault.com/2019/03/25/R...placement.html

                https://harelang.org/
                Everything you need to know about Drew DeVault's Rust analysis :
                > Safety. Yes, Rust is more safe. I don’t really care.
                Last edited by RedEyed; 12 July 2022, 04:04 AM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by RedEyed View Post

                  Everything you need to know about Drew DeVault's Rust analysis :
                  > Safety. Yes, Rust is more safe. I don’t really care.
                  By taking things out of context you only show your zealotry and confirm my theories about what kind of people advocate for Rust, bud. The funniest thing is that the context of this post is specifically kernel programming -- where writing non-unsafe code is impossible by definition.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Sin2x View Post

                    By taking things out of context you only show your zealotry and confirm my theories about what kind of people advocate for Rust, bud. The funniest thing is that the context of this post is specifically kernel programming -- where writing non-unsafe code is impossible by definition.
                    If you switched to personal, well I'm not zealotry to Rust or C/C++, I believe that Rust have big potential. Also, I partially agree with the author, and every thesis there has it's weight.

                    But saying that Safety is a minor thing (the main, and maybe the single Rust feature over C/C++), means to me ignorance and conservatism.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Sin2x View Post

                      If you wanted to be enlightened, you would already be -- but you don't -- because you a blind zealot which I have already pointed out.

                      There has been a plethora of analyses of why Rust is a poor imitation of C++, my favourite one is from Drew DeVault who got so fed up with Rust fanatics preaching on every corner, he created his own systems language:

                      https://drewdevault.com/2019/03/25/R...placement.html

                      https://harelang.org/
                      Holy moly, the linked post is so full of things I'd like to counter but that would take too much time.

                      What really struck me was this:
                      Safety. Yes, Rust is more safe. I don’t really care. In light of all of these problems, I’ll take my segfaults and buffer overflows.
                      This is plain stupidity and/or stubborness and/or denial.

                      Being proud to use a language that makes it easy to segfault or buffer overflow is... I lack words.

                      I especially refuse to “rewrite it in Rust” - because no matter what, rewriting an entire program from scratch is always going to introduce more bugs than maintaining the C program ever would. I don’t care what language you rewrite it in.
                      Tell that to decades old buffer overflow bugs in critical software.. kernel, ssl, core utils, su, ...
                      Because that's sooo good to have than just to replace programs from decades ago, with a programming mindset and tooling from decades ago, in a language that prevents you from doing errors or even stupidity (I'm more clever than the compiler, let me use this ubercool trick because I'm a laet programmer).

                      Gosh, people need to realize programs are not about them or their ego, it's about the users and assets those programs get in contact with - which are to protect at all costs, with the most effort on preventing damage; neglecting this because of ego is... I lack words again.
                      Last edited by reba; 12 July 2022, 05:06 AM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X