Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Google Engineers Lift The Lid On Carbon - A Hopeful Successor To C++

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

  • #81
    Originally posted by Ironmask View Post

    I'm just impressed Google managed to put generics into a language they made, I thought that was a monumental engineering feat they could never achieve. Maybe they got their hands on a couple ex-Microsoft employees.
    Dart always had generics (and used them extensively in Flutter) and Go added them earlier this year. It was never a question of being able to do. It was a question of being able to do them RIGHT. And considering how they scrapped 2-3 different official design proposals and a dozen more community proposals after feedback from multiple FOSS devs, academics and compiler engineers, I think the delays were worth it. Especially considering they're making the memory model C compatible starting with the up-and-coming release. That wouldn't have been possible with about half of the other generics design proposals that were made.

    Comment


    • #82
      Originally posted by Sergey Podobry View Post

      You can count them on fingers. While there are so many companies using Java, Python or C++ that you couldn't fit them in a single post on this forum.
      Yes, and those are all much older and already had a lot of time to be used to build massive infrastructures which are now in maintenance mode. And soon Rust will become like that, and in 50 years we'll be replacing Rust. But right now in this part of history, Rust is replacing the very technologies you just mentioned, because they are inefficient in every way possible, except in regards to Python and it's ease of use (which I personally dislike, but that's just my taste).
      I'm kind of wondering if you even understand how infrastructure and maintenance work or if you're just trying to sound smart?
      Rust is in Linux, you don't seem to be able to counter this given not even C++ managed to do that.

      Comment


      • #83
        Everyone is talking about rust being young, but it is already 12 years in the making ...

        I had high hopes for rust when people started to write an OS in rust: https://gitlab.redox-os.org/
        Every year or so I go and check the progress.
        I have never been able to get that source code to compile properly. Always some incompatibility or version issue.
        That shows to me that rust is not ready yet (after 12 years in the making).
        Rust is too complex a language to make it "big time" like pascal, c, java, etc had.

        The Linux kernel developers probably just got tired of being bombarded by all the rust propaganda and gave in.

        I do find the rust "supporters" to be the most annoying of any community on the internet due to their relentless propaganda.

        Comment


        • #84
          Originally posted by Raka555 View Post
          Everyone is talking about rust being young, but it is already 12 years in the making ...

          I had high hopes for rust when people started to write an OS in rust: https://gitlab.redox-os.org/
          Every year or so I go and check the progress.
          I have never been able to get that source code to compile properly. Always some incompatibility or version issue.
          That shows to me that rust is not ready yet (after 12 years in the making).
          Rust is too complex a language to make it "big time" like pascal, c, java, etc had.

          The Linux kernel developers probably just got tired of being bombarded by all the rust propaganda and gave in.

          I do find the rust "supporters" to be the most annoying of any community on the internet due to their relentless propaganda.
          And this is the funniest thing about Rust critics.
          What's that about it's features?
          Oh, no comment about it's features? It's all propaganda and satan's spawn and the fanboys are just brainwashed?
          It's a programming language. A tool. An object.
          You have psychosis.

          Comment


          • #85
            Originally posted by Ironmask View Post

            And this is the funniest thing about Rust critics.
            What's that about it's features?
            Oh, no comment about it's features? It's all propaganda and satan's spawn and the fanboys are just brainwashed?
            It's a programming language. A tool. An object.
            You have psychosis.
            And luckily we have other choices and get tired of having rust jammed down our thoughts ...

            Watch about 4 minutes of this talk. What she says applies even more to rust than the languages she mentions.

            https://youtu.be/xLTUvFboveM?t=2253

            Last edited by Raka555; 21 July 2022, 06:55 AM.

            Comment


            • #86
              Originally posted by Raka555 View Post

              And luckily we have other choices and get tired of having rust jammed down our thoughts ...

              Watch about 4 minutes of this talk. What she says applies even more to rust than the languages she mentions.

              https://youtu.be/xLTUvFboveM?t=2253
              What are you saying? Rust is "academic" because it helpfully forces you to think about how the memory of the computer works? That you can't just mindlessly copy two raw pointers pointing to the same thing to two entirely unrelated parts of the program and then have your program experience a critical security bug because you forgot to account for that?
              I don't think she's talking about Rust. Actually, if you wanted someone actually smart to talk negatively about Rust, you should look at Johnathan Blow's streams about it. While I greatly respect the man, he's a perfect example of someone thinking they're so smart that they don't have to learn about it judge how useful it is.
              Rust is not hard.

              Comment


              • #87
                Originally posted by Ironmask View Post

                What are you saying? Rust is "academic" because it helpfully forces you to think about how the memory of the computer works? That you can't just mindlessly copy two raw pointers pointing to the same thing to two entirely unrelated parts of the program and then have your program experience a critical security bug because you forgot to account for that?
                I don't think she's talking about Rust. Actually, if you wanted someone actually smart to talk negatively about Rust, you should look at Johnathan Blow's streams about it. While I greatly respect the man, he's a perfect example of someone thinking they're so smart that they don't have to learn about it judge how useful it is.
                Rust is not hard.
                No, What I am saying is rust is too complex, along with c++ and some others.

                BTW I probably watched every stream Johnathan Blow made about JAI.
                Last edited by Raka555; 21 July 2022, 07:12 AM.

                Comment


                • #88
                  Originally posted by Raka555 View Post

                  No, What I am saying is rust is too complex, along with c++ and some others.
                  Can you explain how?

                  Comment


                  • #89
                    Originally posted by ssokolow View Post

                    No, you can enable constructs not subject to borrow checking (raw pointers). That's how Rust internals and FFI operate. There's no switch to disable borrow-checking.
                    Wouldn't a
                    Code:
                    unsafe {
                    }
                    disable the borrow checker?

                    Originally posted by rabcor View Post
                    C(arbon)
                    Proper programmers are a dying breed anyways
                    They never existed in the first place. Or can you show me a project of one of those miracle programmers that never had an error (concurrency, buffer overflow, use after free, ...) thats not possible in rust?

                    most of the coders these days shouldn't be trusted with something as versatile and easy to fuck-up as C++, what we really need is a really simple language like python but paired with an interpreter that allows it to run almost as fast as decently written C++ code would have.
                    You seem to describe Rust.

                    Comment


                    • #90
                      Originally posted by Ironmask View Post

                      Can you explain how?
                      Let me quote someone else: "I've written C and C++ professionally, also used Go and Rust on hobby projects. Rust, by far, was the hardest to learn and get something useable out of it. Because of that, I would never recommend someone put it into production unless they have a very specific use case that Go could not handle. The onboarding costs would be just too much."

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X