On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 07:59:07PM +0800, Alberto Garcia wrote: > "As for the language choice being a ‘barrier,’ if it keeps out the type of > "engineer" who can’t/won’t trouble themselves to learn a new language, then > I’m happy it's in place" > Same thing can be said about programmers that don't want to learn how to > deal with memory, pointers and safe programming (i.e. C++) ... :) >
"Learning how to deal with memory" is not sufficient to avoid memory bugs. If Rust is filtering out programmers who believe raw brainpower is a sufficient defense against a language in which it is impossible to specify code precisely and for which no compiler will detect obviously-wrong things (and worse, programmers who think this is a _good_ use of brainpower even if it were possible) then that is also a good result. Should we also worry about getting programmers who "don't want to learn how types work" and need a language in which objects can't silently and arbitrarily converted between types? > Speed wise and mostly memory wise Rust is way more inefficient than C/C++. > Rust supports all the same memory-management paradigms as C. As near as I can tell this claim is simply false. > I'm just curious because if this project, as I hope, keeps growing it will > eventually be difficult to port if needed. > Porting to an unsafe language with poor data structure support and weak typing would IMO be a reckless and pointless thing to do. Porting to another type of language would be easier from Rust than from C or C++, I expect. -- Andrew Poelstra Mathematics Department, Blockstream Email: apoelstra at wpsoftware.net Web: https://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew "A goose alone, I suppose, can know the loneliness of geese who can never find their peace, whether north or south or west or east" --Joanna Newsom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~mimblewimble Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~mimblewimble More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
