Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rust Developers Planning For The Rust 1.0 Language

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

  • Rust Developers Planning For The Rust 1.0 Language

    Phoronix: Rust Developers Planning For The Rust 1.0 Language

    Rust, the general purpose, safe, and concurrent programming language developed by Mozilla Research, is starting to assemble their vision of Rust 1.0...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTc4OTY

  • #2
    Here's to hoping it eventually replaces C++ for all intents and purposes...

    Comment


    • #3
      Re

      Originally posted by MartinN View Post
      Here's to hoping it eventually replaces C++ for all intents and purposes...
      I don't complain about C++ but Rust is definitely the best currently at the fields that Go, C++ and D programming languages aim.
      They took their time and really impressed with their design decisions. The only complain I have with Rust is that because of its memory security guarantees, it does bounds checking on arrays and this kind of hits a bit the performance compared to something like C++, although you definitely can go into an unsafe {} block and do it the raw way...

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by MartinN View Post
        Here's to hoping it eventually replaces C++ for all intents and purposes...
        Rewriting big C++ application/library isn't usually option. Writing application from scratch can be option if language has compiler, debugger, IDE support and can use Qt or has equivalent of library like Qt.
        Last edited by JS987; 16 September 2014, 01:47 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by JS987 View Post
          Rewriting big C++ application/library isn't usually option. Writing application from scratch can be option if language has compiler, debugger, IDE support and can use Qt or has equivalent of library like Qt.
          Which means Rust isn't really an option. For me as a qt/desktop dev for sure.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by mark45 View Post
            Which means Rust isn't really an option. For me as a qt/desktop dev for sure.
            Preceded by "Rewriting big C++ application/library isn't usually option...."

            Why would you want Rust if you already have qt?
            Might replacing qt be a long Rust plan? Would that be worth doing?

            Comment


            • #7
              Their concept of borrowing memory is the most impressive thing that I took from the language. Props to the devs for sure!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by JS987 View Post
                Rewriting big C++ application/library isn't usually option. Writing application from scratch can be option if language has compiler, debugger, IDE support and can use Qt or has equivalent of library like Qt.
                This. Apps usually use alot of libraries, and while you can cope with binaries, header only libs is the thing you wont be able to use in another language. So stuff like Rust currently works only for 'Hello world' or if you develop all components/functionality along.

                But so much hype.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Alliancemd View Post
                  I don't complain about C++ but Rust is definitely the best currently at the fields that Go, C++ and D programming languages aim.
                  They took their time and really impressed with their design decisions. The only complain I have with Rust is that because of its memory security guarantees, it does bounds checking on arrays and this kind of hits a bit the performance compared to something like C++, although you definitely can go into an unsafe {} block and do it the raw way...
                  I believe bounds check happen only when you're using random access to the array. I.e. if you're iterating through the array, or filtering a collection, or converting a collection into another one, or mapping the elements themselves, the use of iterators (idiomatic in Rust) skips bounds checks.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by magika View Post
                    This. Apps usually use alot of libraries, and while you can cope with binaries, header only libs is the thing you wont be able to use in another language. So stuff like Rust currently works only for 'Hello world' or if you develop all components/functionality along.

                    But so much hype.
                    It's not hype, it's looking at trends. Maybe it won't be Rust, maybe the main things it does get acquired by other languages. Also, lots of smaller languages have been filling niches and becoming sustainable. You probably wouldn't spend your whole life writing only Scala code, but you can work for maybe 5-10 years if you land a good job in Finance and make 120-150k. Then you'll need to go back to some other language, probably.

                    Also narrow-minded in the sense that there are lots of backend tasks that don't need to "copy with binaries, header only libs", like writing web applications, or Docker (100% written in Go - which had its detractors in the same line as you).

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X