On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 18:54:39 +0200
Kamil Cholewiński <harry666t_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
Hey Kamil,
> You don't need a proof, you only need a significant improvement upon C,
> which Rust delivers.
the big drawback of Rust in my opinion is lack of readability.
There are too many things to do one thing and it suffers from
the same issues many novelty languages suffer from.
Repeating the mantra of "safety" is also not smart. Either you
can shoot yourself in the foot with a language or not, and
if you look at Rust and do anything low-level, you just have
to work around the "safety" the language provides.
It is very well possible to write safe code in C, but it takes
consideration and requires the programmer to actually put thought
into what he does.
> In C, 100 in every 100 lines is "unsafe".
> Rust has its own insanities though.
C just cuts the bullshit and doesn't hide the fact how computers
really work. A language can be "secure", but in the end, it will
all boil down to what C shows us every day.
I wouldn't like to see a Rust-flamethread emerging on this
mailing list, as the Rust-supporters here are probably a
loud minority.
The suckless-ml is the wrong place to promote Rust and there is
a lot of material on the web on why Rust cannot in any way be
considered even barely a suckless language.
C is definitely not suckless either, especially when it comes
to UB, but it's probably the language with least suck and
highest simplicity while giving the most power to the developer.
Cheers
FRIGN
--
FRIGN <dev_AT_frign.de>
Received on Mon May 02 2016 - 00:14:20 CEST