Why you should, actually, rewrite some of it in Rust

Re:Why you should, actually, rewrite some of it in Rust by Shriken on Wednesday July 12, 2017 @12:14PM (#14753752)

All of your questions are addressed in the article.

> Why Rust? Why not Idris? Why not Haskell?

    it can easily call C code
    it can easily be called by C code (it can export C compatible functions and structures)
    it does not need a garbage collector
    if you want, it does not even need to handle allocations
    the Rust compiler can produce static and dynamic libraries, and even object files
    the Rust compiler avoids most of the memory vulnerabilities you get in C (yes, I had to mention it)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why you should, actually, rewrite some of it in Rust by snakeanus on Wednesday July 12, 2017 @12:24PM (#14753849)

All of these except GC also hold true for the languages that I mentioned.

As for GC, I think that Mercury avoids its use https://lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/123456789/131304/1/Mazu...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why you should, actually, rewrite some of it in Rust by Rusky on Wednesday July 12, 2017 @12:47PM (#14754091)

Nope- C interop is higher on the list for a reason. Idris and Haskell do not produce straightforward, runtime-less binaries that can be easily loaded by e.g. CPython or Node, without any interference with their runtimes.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why you should, actually, rewrite some of it in Rust by mhh__ on Wednesday July 12, 2017 @02:46PM (#14755328)

These parts are true of D, and C++.

IMO Rust's only true advantage over it's direct "competitors" is it's safety guarantees.

[ Parent | on HN ]