News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Rust vs. Go. Parent comment

Re:Rust vs. Go by dromen on Wednesday January 18, 2017 @09:37PM (#13432493)
You could store them as source files with a hashbang, and make something like "rustrun" which compiles a single Rust source code file and runs the resulting executable? That should take ~15 minutes.

I do wish there was an actual Rust interpreter.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Rust vs. Go by jdormit on Wednesday January 18, 2017 @10:04PM (#13432620)
Why? Rust is a systems-level language. It's not designed for scripting. If that's what you want, use Python/bash/{yourFavoriteScriptingLanguage}.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Rust vs. Go by ch4s3 on Wednesday January 18, 2017 @11:50PM (#13433107)
Well, if you can interpret it then its easy to build a repl, and repls are nice.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Rust vs. Go by fiedzia on Wednesday February 01, 2017 @09:11AM (#13540792)
"being interpreted" in not enough to have useful repl. You also need to be dynamic and introspectable. There are interpreters for C, but it doesn't make it suitable to use with repl.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Rust vs. Go by baq on Thursday January 19, 2017 @03:55AM (#13434211)
there's nothing bad about interpreting a systems language. there are C interpreters available, too. i'd argue it'd be a very useful feature since the compile times of rust are one of its biggest pain points right now.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Rust vs. Go by moosingin3space on Thursday January 19, 2017 @02:16PM (#13438621)
There is a dead project named `rusti` (fails to build on Rust nightly >= 2016-08-01) that can interpret Rust source, and a newer project named `miri` (last commit 3 days ago) that interprets MIR output from the compiler. Several of us in the community, me included, would like a REPL, so I'd keep an eye on these projects to see if they go anywhere.
[ Parent | on HN ]