I happen to prefer C++ to C and D to both.
Hi are you a language?
And on the other hand, if you call “readable” the ability of someone knowing the language to get on board of an existing project, understanding the control flows and feeling confident to make changes, then Rust wins easily because the type system gives you all the information you need straight in front of you.
The first time I had a look at Servo[1], I was able to change what I wanted (which were quite a lot of thing: a few dozens of lines in something like 5 or 6 different files) in a few hours. And when I compiled it it worked fine. Good luck doing the same with a C project you just discovered. And I wasn't even a professional Rust programmer at that time.
[1] the experimental browser engine form Mozilla
The trait system can actually make following execution a bit harder (just like runtime polymorphism in C++), because you have to find the allocation to know the concrete type of what you're looking at. C is much clearer from this point of view (but more limited for the same reasons).
Traits are used to express generality, when you need it. If you don't need to be generic over your input, you don't need traits. And when you need it, Rust makes it more explicit than C (and also more performant because it's statically dispatched by default).
- the ownership of your object (who is in charge of free-ing it) and the lifetime of the pointers that targets this object. (the whole ownership system & the borrow-checker)
- is some data-structure thread-safe. (the Send and Sync traits)
With those, you can take any Rust code and play with it without having to ask existential questions. Your code will never segfault or exhibit a strange intermittent bug ones you add multi-threading.
Less important but still really convenient on a daily basis:
- will this function mutate the value I give it. (&mut pointers)
- has this variable already been consumed, which means I should not touch it anymore (affine type)
Having to bear the cognitive burden of making the lifetime explicit in all of the code is a steep price to pay for the benefit of securing the small subset of the code that is actually complex enough to potentially cause a problem. I wouldn't mind having such a feature be optional though, so that you'd enable it for the most precarious parts, something like a safe{} block rather than unsafe{}.
> will this function mutate the value I give it. (&mut pointers)
We already have const. Yes I agree it's better to enable by default.
It's obviously a learning curve burden but now that I use the language on a daily basis, it doesn't really slows me down. The thing is you don't often need to annotate the lifetimes by hand since the compiler elides the most common case. In practice, the time you need to do the annotation is often what you call «actually complex enough to potentially cause a problem».
There's a whole meme about the "Rust Evangelism Strikeforce" on n-gate.com for a reason, and that reason is the community on HN has become a caricature of itself.
By the way, this is from a person who made a point to introduce Rust to the team, when even just a year or so ago I'd have preferred C++.
> Rust has many benefits and I find it hard to imagine how anyone manages to get any performance-sensitive work done in the cryptocurrency industry with anything else.
Incidentally, I learned this word from Rust docs (lifetime elision). I'd never seen it in any other context.
Rust runs everywhere where there is a c compiler, which is funnily enough the sample places that C/C++ run.
(have fun trying to get Rust working on 8bit controllers or Itanium/ia64)
People think the web is a technology, or that JavaScript is a language.
They’re not. It’s not. The web is an idea: it’s the idea that every computer in the world already has the runtime on it that can run your next app. Whatever that is—whatever that runtime is—that’s “The Browser”.
WASM is not that. Maybe in 10 years.
You don't have to wait 10 years. You can start using WASM today.
I don’t want to write software just for people with 2 year old iPhones. I write software for everyone, especially people who can’t afford anything but the hardware they’re stuck with. That’s why I’m not going to target WASM.
That’s my point: to me, “The Web” isn’t just modern browsers on newish devices. It’s the whole world as an audience. I think that’s why so many people target the web.
I also think WASM is premature optimization in almost all situations.
That said, I totally support anyone who wants to target it. It’s dope technology. If you love Rust and you want to write browser apps with it, and limit your audience a little, knock yourself out. I don’t think you’re embracing what the web is for, but there’s no law that says you have to.
I’ll wait to talk about it again until after I have experience doing browser compatiblility testing with a WASM toolchain.
This debate has happened often enough that any time someone ports something to Rust, even if it's just for fun or for the author to learn more Rust, C/C++ advocates see it as an attack on their language, and bite back.