Re:Would you consider replacing Ruby with Rust instead of Go?
by akacase on Saturday November 14, 2015 @09:49PM
(#10568282)
No, Go is more simple, in terms of syntax among other things. The threading model in Go is very attractive as well, please refer to this article: https://swtch.com/~rsc/thread/
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Would you consider replacing Ruby with Rust instead of Go?
by pcwalton on Monday November 16, 2015 @07:27PM
(#10578358)
> The threading model in Go is very attractive as well, please refer to this article: https://swtch.com/~rsc/thread/
That's a nice overview of CSP. It's not a selling point for Go over Rust. Rust threads are in fact a purer implementation of CSP than Go goroutines are.
Re:Would you consider replacing Ruby with Rust instead of Go?
by davidpelaez on Saturday November 21, 2015 @05:05PM
(#10608213)
Go offers thread as channels directly expressed in the language Syntax, not as a semantic construct on top of them. That is of course attractive for it's simplicity, but Rust offer a lower level alternative. I don't have much experience with Rust, but maybe a clever macro could be use to express in a higher level the type of things you'd use go channels for.
Going back to my proposed question, maybe people can prefer golang for this syntactic benefit but I don't think that addresses the larger set of differences that usually separate them.
Re:Would you consider replacing Ruby with Rust instead of Go?
by akacase on Tuesday November 17, 2015 @12:50AM
(#10579394)
Didn't know that, thanks.
Re:Would you consider replacing Ruby with Rust instead of Go?
by davidpelaez on Saturday November 21, 2015 @08:06PM
(#10608655)
Thanks for the link. It was a great read to understand in more detail what go channels really are from a theoretical perspective and how that could actually be matched within Rust.