News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why Rust? [pdf] by dbaupp on Saturday September 12, 2015 @01:57AM (#10207411)
The standard library is different to the language itself: the language certainly doesn't disallow allocators/OOM handling, it's just the design of std. Furthermore, the standard library is layered: there's `std` with various OS-required routines (IO, etc.) and `core` that is the core stuff that doesn't require any of that. Operating systems/embedded applications can generally use `core`. However, even that is better than C/C++, where one usually has a from-scratch "standard" library (which is possible to do with Rust too): not being able to use the compiler-bundled `std` doesn't seem like a point against Rust.

Many user-space applications don't do heavy network work, which is where concurrent IO is most necessary. E.g. games or a scientific simulation, even web-browsers don't need of concurrent IO (they're not trying to juggle thousands of connections).

Re:Why Rust? [pdf] by acconsta on Saturday September 12, 2015 @02:23PM (#10208824)
>Operating systems/embedded applications can generally use `core`.

Which doesn't, correct me if I'm wrong, provide a stable allocator API or OOM handling yet.

>E.g. games

When your client pings 400 servers, how is it doing that? How is the game server implemented?

>a scientific simulation

That runs on one machine, and doesn't do a lot of disk IO? (concurrent file IO matters too).

>even web-browsers

Open the Chrome dev tools "network" tab, and then open Gmail. How many requests did it make?

Again, concurrent IO is important.