On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Patrick Walton <[email protected]> wrote: > On 1/25/14 2:48 AM, Daniel Micay wrote: >> >> Rust aims to be a systems language displacing C and C++ from their >> niche. I don't think it's suitable as one with the standard library, >> and it's not replacement for C without a large library ecosystem. > > > As Brian said, this sort of inflammatory, unspecific criticism is not > welcome. Especially when you are advocating making channels *less* > performant. > > Patrick
I don't think it's inflammatory or unspecific. Rust's standard library doesn't follow the pay-for-what-you-use philosophy and pulls in many megabytes of code via trait objects despite it not be used. It also forces the bindings to any library making use of thread-local storage (many!) to use painful context objects, even though it's unnecessary with 1:1 threading. C++ follows the philosophy of not making you pay for abstractions you aren't using. A simple multi-consumer channel is faster than the current Rust channels with 1:1 threading, so I'm only advocating leaving out a restricted API until it offers a performance advantage over a default, unrestricted one. _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
