Reflections on Rust, and the Sand Castle Metaphor

Re:Reflections on Rust, and the Sand Castle Metaphor by pjmlp on Saturday April 28, 2018 @05:57AM (#16946911)

If I have a budget of 300ms and 100MB, am able to deliver it within 150ms and 30MB, why should I spend more money to make it lets say 50ms and 10MB?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Reflections on Rust, and the Sand Castle Metaphor by stirner on Saturday April 28, 2018 @08:00AM (#16947256)

There are many reasons why you might use a systems programming language [1].

> System programming requires a great degree of hardware awareness. Its goal is to achieve efficient use of available resources, either because the software itself is performance critical (AAA video games) or because even small efficiency improvements directly transform into significant monetary savings for the service provider (cloud based word processors).

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_programming

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Reflections on Rust, and the Sand Castle Metaphor by pjmlp on Saturday April 28, 2018 @10:13AM (#16947718)

A few languages do support such low-level controls to have such fine grain memory control outside GC hands.

So the question is, having been able to achieve half of the allowed budget, why pay for more development effort?

Of course, if the bugdet is only achievable with a lower level language, there is no way around using it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Reflections on Rust, and the Sand Castle Metaphor by iopq on Wednesday May 09, 2018 @09:36PM (#17035828)

Because sometimes there's no budget, there's "we spend less money on hardware the less resources our program uses" so faster is always better.

[ Parent | on HN ]