Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

Reasons not to use Rust

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-08 12:21

- You think programming languages should be closed and proprietary
- You like random pauses caused by forced collection of the garbage
- You think program start-up should take minutes so you use stupid VM-languages instead
- You like broken features and memory corruption
- You sell hardware and want to deploy inefficient scripting languages only to sell more
- You only do pure programs that don't interact with the world
- You are a retard who doesn't understand the concept of ownership

Anything else?

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-08 12:50

I don't care about this or any hipsterlang until they become stable and won't break backward compatibility. You can evangelize it all you want, it won't matter. C++ is not going away.
A programmer doesn't see Rust as something valuable because of a single overhyped feature(only autists think a single "superior feature" is enough). Its a whole complex of features and libs available in Rust that will determine its future.
When you talk to people as "retards who don't understand X" you probably lack the ability to articulate the advantages of X or overestimate the value of X.
Try reading: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?HowToSellGoldenHammers

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-08 13:39

You have to pretty strong to lift a golden hammer.

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-08 14:01

>>3 4th paragraph
Don't Patronize - Don't be arrogant or talk down to people, such as "pearls before swine" or "real programmers get it" (even if you believe it true). Arrogance, even pride merely perceived as such, doesn't work. It puts them into a defensive battle mode instead of focusing on potentially helpful tools. They are no longer thinking in terms of tools but in terms of personal turf wars, and start using a different part of their brain.

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-08 14:06

- You like your security claims to be backed by something

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-08 14:54

Why not use a better language then? Ada comes to mind.

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-08 15:08

One word. The Forced Collection of the Garbage. Thread over.

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-08 19:44

>>7
Neither Rust nor Ada have it, idiot.

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-08 23:08

lol @ rustfags shilling hard and failing

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-08 23:39

>>8
Rust does. Stop lying to me!

Name: sage 2015-04-08 23:55

/g/ please leave

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-09 5:31

>>1
You want a mature runtime library and toolchain that can easily produce freestanding binaries for multiple architectures (not just x86 or ARM).

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-09 13:45

lol @ rustfags shilling hard and failing

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-10 19:16

>>9,13
take your shitty "shill bait pleb" memes back to /g/

Name: lol @ rustfags shilling hard 2015-04-10 19:34

lol @ rustfags shilling hard and failing

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-10 20:01

>>15
You'll make lel-kunt come back.

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-10 20:14

>>15
I read it as "lol @ rustfags shilling and falling hard", now I feel embarrassed by it.

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-10 20:53

I always get a boner when I'm shilling.

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-11 9:21

I always get a boner when I'm shitting.

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-11 9:55

One of the coolest features of Rust is how it automatically manages resources for you, while still guaranteeing both safety (no segfaults) and high performance.

Because Rust is a different kind of programming language, it might be difficult to understand what I mean, so let me be perfectly clear:

In Rust, as in garbage collected languages, you never explicitly free memory
In Rust, unlike in garbage collected languages, you never1 explicitly close or release resources like files, sockets and locks
Rust achieves both of these features without runtime costs (garbage collection or reference counting), and without sacrificing safety.

http://blog.skylight.io/rust-means-never-having-to-close-a-socket/

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-11 22:15

One of the coolest features of Rust is how it has no real language specifiction or validation for its security claims

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-11 23:01

>>21
Who cares about validation? Claims of security should always remain unchecked, unlike these sweet dubs.

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-11 23:55

>>21
Most popular programming languages have no such specification. The few that do did not have them from the outset. Standardization is most effective at codifying existing practice, not at trying to anticipate it.

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-12 1:23

I too like the cluttered syntax of Rust

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-12 1:38

>>23
Most popular programming languages have no such specification

everyone else is shit so it's ok that rust is too

no

Standardization is most effective at codifying existing practice

the purpose of a language specification is so that you can understand what programs are valid and what they mean. Without this we have to go by intuition, extrapolating from other languages and tutorials, running the code to 'try it and see' etc. This is beyond ridiculous for a "systems programming language" especially one that is probably going to become the go-to language for security critical software - by defending the lack of spec. and worse proofs of the safety properties that they claim.. then you're asking for rust to collapse in on itself and become the next PHP rather than something better and it has potential.

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-12 2:58

>>25
The Rust implementation is open source. Because of this it is absolutely possible to know what a piece of code does without relying on human interpretation.

No one has ever produced a widely useful language in the way you are proposing.

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-12 4:55

>>26
HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-12 5:02

>>26
The GCC implementation is open source. Because of this it is absolutely possible to know what a piece of code does without relying on human interpretation.

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-12 6:42

>>27
I fail to see what is so humorous.

>>28
Please speak your point clearly.

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-12 6:58

>>29
The 28th Post implementation is open source. Because of this it is absolutely possible to know what a piece of text does without relying on human interpretation.

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-12 7:21

>>30
This doesn't make any sense. Do you think you're being clever. You aren't.

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-12 7:27

>>31 The failure is the opensource==safe+obvious reasoning
The (Rust,C,C++,Brainfuck,Unlambda,Malbolge) implementation is open source. Because of this it is absolutely possible to know what a piece of code does without relying on human interpretation.

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-12 7:39

Stop piping your posts through a one way function!

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-12 7:50

>>33
The reasoning X is A doesn't lead to X is B, because A doesn't lead to B.

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-12 7:55

>>34
Ok. Now what is X, A, and B?

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-12 8:02

>>35 X=Rust A=OpenSource B=Security

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-12 8:26

>>36
Ok. Now how is this statement related to >>26?

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-12 8:37

>>37 Its a condensed form of >>26
The Rust implementation is open source. Because of this it is absolutely possible to know what a piece of code does without relying on human interpretation.

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-12 9:17

>>38
But the implementation can change arbitrarily and without warning, obviously. The NSA can always sneak a couple of backdoors in if they feel the language threatens their power.

Name: Anonymous 2015-04-12 9:32

>>39 If security means "lack of obvious backdoors" you're terribly misguided. Security means the code is proven secure(e.g. CompCert , Ada Spark). Have "open-source" C code that "sorta does what it claims to do" is not a form of security. Open source doesn't make the code secure.
Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List
All trademarks and copyrights on this site are owned by their respective parties. All comments and posts are the responsibility of their own posters.
- Tinychan + 2ch Mode + RSS -