On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 17:20:12 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 17:04:56 UTC, Dennis Ritchie
wrote:
It seems to me that many still do not understand what the Rust
:) Many have not seen Lisp, so they think that Rust is
something innovative. At least from the syndrome of angle
brackets and other syntactic shaluhi its developers are not
disposed of, but only made matters worse. This language is not
better than the same C++.
Sorry, but this sounds like extremely uneducated opinion.
Yes, it is. I have not had time to spend some time playing with
Rust, so my opinion about Rust is very bad.
Rust has a very clearly defined set of values and goals. It is
designed for large scale projects that need to combine high
performance with maintainability and does that at cost of
learning curve and rapid prototyping. Very strict and punishing
compiler (with a pedantic and complicated type system) ensures
that it is much harder to make accidental subtle mistakes. Even
generics are completely type-checked (via traits).
OK. But Rust better than the same minimalist Go? Besides, there
is no garbage collection Rust. This, at least, not to date. No
bounds checking of arrays.
(yes, I did spend quite some time playing with it)
I also plan to play with Rust, but a little later.
There are few important features missing compared to D, i.e.
static reflection and metaprogramming can only be done via AST
macros. But primarily the main issue I see is that there is no
reason to pick Rust for a project with less than 50 KLOC unless
you want to learn. Productivity feels very low.
Well, if Rust created for huge projects, why these macros? I fear
that macros are simply not needed in C-family languages.
The macros help in D? Write unbearable code? :D
Still, saying that it is "same C++" is absolutely missing the
point.
Yes, I admit that it is very incorrect: so speaks of Rust, but in
this case it is no better than Go from Google. The Rust better
than Go in large projects?
