Rust is Not so Hairy

Re:Rust is Not so Hairy by pjmlp on Tuesday June 19, 2018 @05:04AM (#17344908)

> What makes Rust, like C or C++, efficient is not just that they are statically compiled, it's that they have massively-tuned optimizing compiler spending a lot of time in compile-time optimizations.

Actually lots of money spend across compiler vendors in the last 30 years, and UB abuse, as C compilers were pretty lame in the early 80's.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rust is Not so Hairy by dbaupp on Tuesday June 19, 2018 @08:08AM (#17345807)

There was no need to "well actually" that, as it is the same point the parent was making: that money (and UB abuse) is why the tuned compilers now exist.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rust is Not so Hairy by pjmlp on Tuesday June 19, 2018 @08:10AM (#17345827)

I interpreted differently, as if being an inherent property of how C and C++ were designed.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rust is Not so Hairy by geezerjay on Tuesday June 19, 2018 @09:07AM (#17346185)

> UB abuse

That baseless assertion makes no sense. UB is a property of the ISO standard and has no effect on how compiler vendors implement the language. In fact, UB is intended to enable vendors to be free to choose how they implement that behavior. So why do you believe that the freedom to pick how you implement something hinders any development effort?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rust is Not so Hairy by pjmlp on Tuesday June 19, 2018 @09:36AM (#17346429)

I don't know, maybe the daily CVE reports including some Linux exploits, in spite of the kernel review process and static analyzers?

[ Parent | on HN ]