Re:Do we need a “Rust Standard”?
by tialaramex on Wednesday October 26, 2022 @04:20PM
(#33348843)
As well as obeying Betteridge's Law, Mara's article hits a few frequent mistakes that crop up in Rust discussions: e.g. how Editions are different (I would say better) than versions of a standard language like C++.
One thing I think is worth more reflection is: Are there specific things such a Specification must cover, or is it enough, as it seems C and C++ felt, to just specify some of the language and leave the rest unacknowledged ?
For example, ANSI and ISO C significantly pre-date the memory model we're all now comfortable C implements. They don't offer a different memory model, the specification just never mentions what's going on at all in this respect. If you wrote concurrent software in C in, say, 1996 (which I did) then eh, it does whatever it is that it happens to do. The ISO standard document has no view.
Right now, Rust "pretty blatantly just inherits the memory model for atomics from C++20. This is not due to this model being particularly excellent or easy to understand. Indeed, this model is quite complex and known to have several flaws. Rather, it is a pragmatic concession" (quoting the Nomicon). Is that good enough? If Aria's Strict Provenance experiment goes well, how much of that should be specified? As much as possible? As little as possible?
One thing I think is worth more reflection is: Are there specific things such a Specification must cover, or is it enough, as it seems C and C++ felt, to just specify some of the language and leave the rest unacknowledged ?
For example, ANSI and ISO C significantly pre-date the memory model we're all now comfortable C implements. They don't offer a different memory model, the specification just never mentions what's going on at all in this respect. If you wrote concurrent software in C in, say, 1996 (which I did) then eh, it does whatever it is that it happens to do. The ISO standard document has no view.
Right now, Rust "pretty blatantly just inherits the memory model for atomics from C++20. This is not due to this model being particularly excellent or easy to understand. Indeed, this model is quite complex and known to have several flaws. Rather, it is a pragmatic concession" (quoting the Nomicon). Is that good enough? If Aria's Strict Provenance experiment goes well, how much of that should be specified? As much as possible? As little as possible?