News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Rust and the Future of Systems Programming [video] by qwertyuiop924 on Wednesday November 16, 2016 @04:15PM (#12971608)
Ah.

But C has this problem as well. If you've malloc(3)ed an array of 2^31 pointers, each pointing to an object, enjoy your 2^31 free(3)s, or prepare to start leaking RAM.

So what's your point?

Re:Rust and the Future of Systems Programming [video] by naasking on Wednesday November 16, 2016 @04:25PM (#12971708)
Yes, C/C++ and Rust have the same problems, as I said elsewhere. My ultimate point is that low latency is a property of a runtime, not a language. Using C/C++ or Rust aren't going to automatically give you bounded latency, and adding tracing GC doesn't automatically take it away.
Re:Rust and the Future of Systems Programming [video] by solidsnack9000 on Thursday November 17, 2016 @01:57AM (#12975029)
The language and runtime typically cooperate to provide the operational semantics that developers are looking for. The case of Objective-C is especially interesting in this regard: developers evolved a number of conventions around reference counting, because reference counting allowed for controllable, minimal latency and contributed to a snappy UI. The language gradually absorbed these conventions into the compiler, such that certain patterns of use are part of the language specification (certain method names, basically) and the ARC code is generated for developers.
Re:Rust and the Future of Systems Programming [video] by qwertyuiop924 on Wednesday November 16, 2016 @04:34PM (#12971786)
Oh.

Well then actually, we're in complete agreement. Sorry.