On 8/19/14, 3:50 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote:
On Monday, 18 August 2014 at 23:48:24 UTC, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
On 8/18/14, 8:51 AM, bearophile wrote:
Jonathan M Davis:
The biggest reason is memory safety. With a GC, it's possible to make
compiler guarantees about memory safety, whereas with
manual memory management, it isn't.
Unless you have a very smart type system and you accept some compromises
(Rust also uses a reference counter some some cases, but I think most
allocations don't need it).
Bye,
bearophile
It's very smart, yes. But it takes half an hour to compile the
compiler itself.
The compilation speed is caused by the C++ code in their compiler
backend (LLVM), which gets compiled at least twice during the
bootstraping process.
Actually, it's 26m to just compile Rust without LLVM. Take a look at this:
https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/496774607610052608
Then here someone from the team says he can't say a way to improve the
performance by an order of magnitude:
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02856.html
(but I don't know how true is that)
And you have to put all those unwrap and types everywhere, I don't
think it's fun or productive that way.
There I fully agree. If they don't improve lifetime's usability, I don't
see Rust being adopted by average developers.
This. But maybe programming in a safe way is inherently hard? Who knows...
