The biggest threat to Rust's sustainability

Re:The biggest threat to Rust's sustainability by davidkunz on Friday March 19, 2021 @06:42AM (#26511861)

I don't think we should dismiss these comments so eagerly. Take a look at Nim - it's fast, efficient and elegant without the huge syntax overhead of Rust.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The biggest threat to Rust's sustainability by duckerude on Friday March 19, 2021 @07:37AM (#26512145)

Isn't Nim's niche closer to Go's than to Rust's? It has garbage collection, at least by default.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The biggest threat to Rust's sustainability by davidkunz on Friday March 19, 2021 @07:45AM (#26512187)

I'm not an expert in Nim, so it would be great if others could jump in. But to my understanding, Nim's ORC "garbage collector" (I'd rather call it memory strategy) is very similar to Rust's approach, it's based on reference counting (RC). It can also handle cyclic references.

See here for more details: https://nim-lang.org/blog/2020/10/15/introduction-to-arc-orc...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The biggest threat to Rust's sustainability by withoutboats2 on Friday March 19, 2021 @08:36AM (#26512550)

It is not at all like Rust; it is a garbage collection system based on reference counting, pretty similar to Swift. This is obscured by the documentation for each using similar terminology (like "move semantics" and "ownership") to refer to systems with different characteristics.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The biggest threat to Rust's sustainability by davidkunz on Friday March 19, 2021 @08:58AM (#26512745)

Thanks for clarification withoutboats2! It's really confusing as Nim's move semantics "feel" very similar to Rust's (except that Nim is more relaxed regarding "use after move" - it simply performs a copy). I'll need to learn a lot more about the different concepts.

[ Parent | on HN ]