Is Rust shit ? or good ?

Is Rust shit ? or good ?

Other urls found in this thread:

github.com/servo/servo/tree/master/components
doc.rust-lang.org/1.2.0/book/dining-philosophers.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

absolute trash, similar to dayz but actually launches

>thinking this is Sup Forums
go away.

absolute shit retard

assume you never paid $60 for a game

Rust is a programming language, memelord.

github.com/servo/servo/tree/master/components

Read code and decide.

Wasn't g sperging about how this would be the language to rule over all?

Code is Perl-tier unreadable and people seem to fight the compiler more than actually use it's memory safety as a plus.

It has safety at it's core, and is almost as fast as C/C++.

You decide.

Those weren't Sup Forumsents. They were paid shills promoting the SJW agenda.
The only reason Rust exists is to be political leverage for Mozilla in the culture wars.

Language run by extreme leftists.
For example see doc.rust-lang.org/1.2.0/book/dining-philosophers.html
Check the biographies of the philosophers picked for "demonstration purposes only" and see what they all have in common.

>doc.rust-lang.org/1.2.0/book/dining-philosophers.html
>Judith Goldman

>what they all have in common
What?

Don't pretend you don't know.

>some of the cleanest code I've ever seen
>also happens to be memory-safe
Thanks, that helped a lot.

Looks like shit, why would one not just use C or C++? That's a rhetorical question - they should just use C or C++ and not this meme language.

you should start talking about fast code so the Rust Evangelism Strikeforce wont get involved

Fast code like ripgrep's, leaf's, or colenchyma's you mean? Oh wait, that's all rust and nothing in C even comes close to that speed.

>Taking the bait

rigged benchmark breh.

seems shit to me

> main claim to fame for rust is that it can sometimes hold its own next to C++
> offers no nontrivial advantages over C++ though
> Isn't even close to as wildly popular and industry standard as C++

truth is C++ is basically the optimal programming language given the limitations of what humans know about computers

Average nsa shill everybody!

The chances that G++/GCC have been sabotaged by the NSA are 0

The NSA doesn't need to sabotage gcc. All that matters is the language itself. So long as someone somewhere is writing C or C++, the NSA can get in the system running that code.

laughably bullshit

Fact: 80% of all languages are just middlemen between you and something written in C/C++

Not sure if clinically retarded or just an NSA shill.jpg

Why are there literally two rust threads

4 rust threads by my count actually.
All made by NSA shills to try to convince people to go back to C and C++ because it would be terrible if people could have all of speed, safety, and ease of development. How will the NSA break into your systems this way?

>truth is C++ is basically the optimal programming language given the limitations of what humans know about computers

CIA shill trying to take away arbitrary pointers from us

Obviously doesn't want us to have control over our own computers

Surrender to the IRA you lost the war on terror

I don't give a shit who's shilling, this is more than enough threads about Rust

>mozilla, pls go

>main claim to fame for rust is that it can sometimes hold its own next to C++
It's actually faster than C++.

>offers no nontrivial advantages over C++ though
The C++ comitee is trying hard to get what it can from Rust, but they can't actually do it because of language limitations.

If you want some kind of safety you need to use std::shared_ptr to effectively do what lifetimes and the borrow checker do at compile time, except it's just a reference counted smart pointer and you still aren't safe from shared mutable access.

For single ownership you're going to use std::unique_ptr but then you can't share it without either making an std::shared_ptr from it, or just giving out the pointer/reference, which again invalidates the safety.

C++ abstractions are actually fairly costly most of the time, the only thing Rust sucks at compared to C++ is metaprogramming capabilities, templates are the shit.

>Isn't even close to as wildly popular and industry standard as C++
C++ has been around for decades, no shit Sherlock.

It's very readable once you know the syntax while Perl is regular expression tier dense even when you know the syntax.

Extremely generic code gets hairy fairly quickly but it's nowhere near unreadable, assuming you're using type aliases and where clauses to ameloriate the Indian/Italian tier hairiness.

The fighting the compiler is also not that bad once you realize what you're doing is actually unsafe, few edge cases remain where the compiler is actually too dumb to figure out what you wrote is actually safe, but a bunch of them are getting fixed once non-lexical lifetimes get implemented. The others one has to live with, for instance you can't have a method taking `&'a mut self` and returning an `&'a T` and make 'a shared after the call, it will stay mutable.

I can't speak for leaf, but in the case of ripgrep it's actually the fastest around, and I mean really fucking fast, I replaced ag/grep with it and could never go back.

rg fuck 0.99s user 0.47s system 857% cpu 0.171 total


That was looking for fuck in the Linux git repository.

You know there is more to computer security than buffer overflows in C

This, all the Rust shitposting going on recently really feels like some chodemeister learned what a buffer overflow was and now thinks C is only capable of producing insecure programs when really it's just amateurs and deadlines that create insecure programs

Right, like undelimited blocks and longjmp.

Name 1 (one) non-trivial, secure C program.
It's literally, LITERALLY (non-figuratively) impossible.
>hurr durr the brightest people in the world are just amateurs with deadlines

I agree that C is cancer, but it's possible to create vulnerabilities in more ways than memory leaks

Sure, but Rust avoid all obvious such cases (no goto, must delimit all blocks, no atexit, no longjmp) as well as dealing with memory issues, which are probably over 95% of all vulnerabilities (not necessarily leaks or buffer overruns etc. either). And sure it doesn't mean rust programs are immune to security vulnerabilities, but it does mean that you have to try damn hard to create one. This is ultimately the goal after all: you want all flaws to be caused by incompetence rather than oversight, or language underdefinition ("if in very particular context X which is only encountered on systems actively targeted by an attack, the code generated by the compiler is allowed to do whatever") or deliberate sabotage.

Ehem
Rust is iron-oxide -- a product of exposing iron products to an oxygenated environment.
No, rust is not literally feces.
Rust can be good. For instance, rust is used in some dyes and pigments as a red or brown color agent.
I much prefer C (carbon) to rust, though, because it is a tried and true chemical that is used in a lot of things. Recently, I have taken a liking to D (deuterium) because it is so fun to use. Whatever you do stay away from C++ (Carbon-3), though, because only stupid fucking lame-o retards who like shitty metaprogramming and retarded standard libraries use C++

GNU Hello

>hello world
>non-trivial
Cfags in a nutshell.