Now that the rust has settled is this the future of programming?

Now that the rust has settled is this the future of programming?

Other urls found in this thread:

github.com/cplusplus/draft
pastebin.com/WJi2szQB
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Yes.

Without a doubt.

Even more, it's the zero-cost future of programming.

I think swift is the future...

Swift is reference counted, it's not even a competition.

besides memory safety, why should i use rust?

Haskell high level, idris mid level, rust low level

Because it isn't plagued by 32 years' worth of mistakes like that other language.

>brainlet meme language adopts type theory concepts that have been around for decades
>is this the (((future)))?

[citation needed]

nothing wrong with reference counting my dude

Source: github.com/cplusplus/draft

>a language with type theory concepts that have been around for decades is finally backed by a large company and has a chance to become a mainstream option
>this is somehow a bad thing

for Apple maybe

Am I the only one here with a job doing full time Rust?

what do you use it for?

Holy craps, I just typed "Rust programming" into indeed.com, and only 80 jobs showed up, none of them looking like they were actual rust programming jobs. Rusties BTFO

>Am I the only one here with a job doing full time Rust?

I don't believe you my dude

...

I see it as philosophical evolution, its like watching communist and fascist arguing about who is doing it in the best manner and at the same time replacing and or redoing wheels for no apparent reason that they have to do it.
Rust supposedly tries to make the code safer by enforcing their rules and with a very complex and hard to understand syntax.
Golang tries to make it easy and simple so every pajet understands whats going on and the parts that are very complex they just implement them in libraries they them self write or ad it to the syntax language like for example the concurrency meme golang has.
Both are just redoing things instead of investing time to improve existing languages, they could perfect compilers, ad libraries, make language revisions, or even ad optimization features at the editor level. Both languages are big memes that don't bring anything new or that other languages already had in some manner. Both languages are filled with low IQ kids that wont bother googling the alternative method of doing what those languages do in C.

The only relevant language is C, everything else is a superset of it

Backend stuff for now, but the plan is to use it everywhere by making a common crate for mobile and web.

Yeah, it's hard to believe people on Sup Forums have jobs.

I met that guy, I don't like him.

>I met that guy, I don't like him.

Why? He seems fine.

I only managed to slip a Rust linked object into my sepples job.

He has this air of superiority with the way he communicates, and when he's wrong (most of the time) he keeps defending his point, until someone either starts insulting him and he'll play the victim card, or someone definitely proves him wrong and he'll play the "bad tone" card.

Yes. Sup Forums approved language

algebraic data types
no OOP

Underrated post

I created some microservices in Rust at my job without asking for permission... tfw at a level where I can shill languages/tech at the workplace

you will get fired when they when ask the indians to add a feature to it

They're using microservices, it's likely a hello world tier service.

So goes on the 5th decade of futile attempts to replace C...

kek

Actually there never has been a serious attempt to replace C

I never said these attempts were serious.

Fair enough.

>that other language
C++?

Yes

>make language revisions
The language doesn't need revisions. It can already express every kind of computation a computer can do. The onus is on the programmer to get better at programming and to use the tools (C) we already have. If anything, we need to raise the barrier of entry so people without talent never develop a delusion of being programmers.

>improve existing languages
Most current languages cannot be improved without breaking compatibility.
If you're going to break compatibility you might as well just write a completely new language but properly this time.

>rust
>very complex and hard to understand syntax
Good. Stay away from it and use the brainlet containment language.

>some rustie came to my uni to shill years ago
>after "lecture" I asked him to come to my desk
>had a legit question
>showed him an error I was getting with firefox
>gets visibly offended and storms off

I realize firefox is not in the scope of his work but I figured if he's so smart he can help me regardless. Like if they let you masturbate in front of grad students for an hour that means your smart, right?

anyway IIRC he had a macbook

>mfw these rustlet babbys dont know about erlang.

Can confirm, dude's a stubborn douchebag. But then again, that's practically the status quo here in the bay area among tech scene """hipsters""". So many of them are just surreal in how fake/robotic and whiney they are. Makes me ashamed to be in the same field as them, and that they're working on stuff that people actually use... *shudders*

>mfw someone is comparing rust to a vm language

I'm undecided whether I should learn C++ or Rust. Rust it seems like you have to go unsafe if you want to do any kind of real world stuff. If I'm going to use C/C++ libs for everything, I might as well use C++ already. What made you guys go with Rust?

1/10

give me an example where you had to use unsafe

>backend stuff
Ayy LMAO
How is having shit performance

Making a circular XOR linked list, I write a lot of these myself, Rust can't do them

Very powerful parametric or structured ad-hoc static polymorphism, as opposed to inheritance based dynamic polymorphism like in many OOP languages.

Strong focus on controlled mutation and static analysis to eliminate memory and concurrency-related errors. Automated memory cleanup with RAII which workes well together with the above.

Empathis on immutability by default. Also consistently applies pass-by-move in function calls as opposed to pass by copy meaning that you don't pay a performance price on function calls, and the static analysis makes sure that it only makes deep copies of something if it is declared to be copiable and you use it more than once.

It is very good whenever you need both high performance like in C or C++, but also want it to be easier to write correct bug-free code. C/C++ can technically do that, but they are notorious tricksters, and you need to both have a very good understanding of the language (I said fast, so hiding everything behind a shared pointer doesn't cut it) and use of expensive static analyzer tools in a language that was not designed to be easy to statically analyze.

So in practice, C and C++ only end up actually reaching that level of confidence on the really expensive Automotive/Aerospace projects that have near-infinite software budgets and apply cleanroom programming techniques. Rust allows even relative novices to get at least part of that with just the standard compiler. It won't catch bugs that are not memory or concurrency related though, you can still do things like write a buggy binary search. Later additions to the language such as inferrable refinements (a.k.a. liquid types like the ones in liquid Haskell) could change that in the future though, and Rust is a way easier language to statically check than C or C++ so I'd expect the static analysis tools available for it to pass the C++ ones as it matures.

fair enough, at least it will be a tiny module tho and you can fuzz the hell out of it

Meant to be a reply to

I've made an XOR linked list in Rust as well. ( pastebin.com/WJi2szQB )

It does need some unsafe, but it mostly needs it because the data structure is so heavy on pointer arithmetic. Most people would be using a data structure implemented by someone else that has already been thoroughly tested and exposes a safe interface.

please no bully

Having to sprinkle "unsafe" all over the code gives off the impression that you're insecure about it and not confident it's safe, exactly the opposite of what Rust is supposed to accomplish. Whereas code written in C just has to be indented properly and it looks like the author knew exactly what he was doing. It's important for talented programmers to be able to write code that expresses how good they are at their jobs. For that reason, Rust is not a language that should be used in production.

i have added you comment signature to my tensorflow ignore AI, i will see no more of your nonsense

that was witty and funny

are visual studio code and RLS really this shit?

yeah someone should write a faster rust typechecker in haskell

Nobody uses iron, it's using hyper 0.10 which has its own shitty synchronous network stack.

C++ is what I do for a living but I use Rust at home because it's comfy

Module stuff annoys the hell out of me but I like the convenience that comes from being the bastard child of Ruby and C

The bastard child of Ruby and C is Crystal, I don't see where you're getting the Ruby from.

And what module stuff?

Learn both. Rust is comfy but there's more C++ out there if you're looking for money

Rust is easy if you're comfortable in C++17

The point of unsafe is to extend the concept of memory safety. You unsafe where the compiler is too dumb to enforce invariants and write an interface around it that the compiler can reason about, and you get certainty it won't explode in your anus when using it if internally the invariants are upheld.

Lots of early Rustfags came from the Ruby world. You can see the influence in shit like closure syntax.

>And what module stuff?
'use' shit everywhere like some Java bs and having to treat every file beyond main.rs as some separate little library. I don't want to write libraries, everything in my project is a one-off because I'm following a book and writing Rust instead of copy+pasting its Java code

I assume it's one of those things that doesn't matter on a big project where you want to separate shit into libraries but in my case it's just annoying when I want to spread across a few files

>The language doesn't need revisions. It can already express every kind of computation a computer can do. The onus is on the programmer to get better at programming and to use the tools we already have.

If people had this attitude with regard to punch-cards, we wouldn't have ever gotten C. This is the mindset of a caveman.

>For that reason, Rust is not a language that should be used in production.

The 'Carthago delenda est' of our era.

You have structs and traits
That's OOP, dipshit

No because,

Tooling still sucks
2017 was year of IDE and still nothing

Crates aren't namespaced
One typo and your machine is owned by Russian hackers

Community full of hateful miscreants
You will always feel unwelcome unless you accept their CoC in your faget ass

Rust is okay but it's still parameterizng syntax within a pre-Shannonian paradigm, which is adequate for most script kiddies and paper baggers but clearly obsolete and laughably traceable for more off-the-grid users.

Rust would do better if they implemented Metropolis-Hastings-based MCMC algorithms to jump space among more complex multi-modal distributions. The raw scratch frequencies with Rust are quite simply imprecise, rudimentary, and a bit too lagged, at least when clocked using a homebuilt celeritometer based on the Hosoya (1991) allelopathic discrepancy factors. A language must provide a core sympodial growth refraction, otherwise the users will inevitably outgrow it before it reaches its peak accessibility and fluency.

I currently use a modular language of my design, relying on translocular "clarets" each comprising their own unique etymological sprite zones. At least nine Daka-ranked keyboard men in Tottori are adopting my lang, but I'm trying to keep it underground for obvious reasons. In short, as we say in the gray, "Rust is Dust". Use it for high clearance black hat ops and you're fried, I know at least four good chip-and-board zombies who knew their stuff but got tossed in an oil platform hacker trapper-keeper because they thought they could do it all with Rust. Be careful.

Is the Rust community still cancer? I'm not into crossdressing and don't want to sign some code of conduct just to ask a technical question that has nothing to do with social issues.

...

>Is the Rust community still cancer?
Their language is named after metal cancer desu

But from what I've heard they're friendly enough on irc if you're asking language questions

everything you write in C++ is unsafe

...