That's something I haven't heard before about the memory safety. In what ways is it not memory-safe?
this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2024
18 points (100.0% liked)
Programming
13405 readers
2 users here now
All things programming and coding related. Subcommunity of Technology.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Let’s bring C into this discussion if we want to talk about overused languages which aren’t fit for purpose. 😂
The ergonomics of Rust are better than C and C++, and programmer productivity is the metric which really matters.
Rust is compiled, and compiled languages are easier to deploy. Especially statically compiled languages like Rust.
Ada might better, but it needs to be updated.
Ada compiler development is also tied to a company which is moving to Rust, and the gnat toolchain developed by Adacore is “Open Source”, eventually, maybe.
Overused
What is the correct amount of usage? Why shouldn't people use the languages they want to?
Overused? According to who?
More like "overhyped"
It has been used more than needed
According to who?
Just in my opinion. It's probably a trending programming language right now. More loved than C or C++ by some developers
The older something is, the more people grow used to it, but also have had a chance to get burned by it:
- C was released in 1972 (52 years), C99 was released in 1999 (25 years), hasn't changed much since
- C++ was released in 1998 (26 years), there are 7 versions of C++ with notable changes
- Rust was released in 2015 (9 years), it's still on the same 1.x version implying backwards compatibility
Rust was created to fix some of the problems C and C++ have had for decades, it's only logical that people like it more... for now.
You’re upset that new technology is displacing a 50 year old technology with a ton of well known flaws?
It’s a hyped language because it solves many problems that has persisted with C and C++ - without having to rely on garbage collection.
If anything, it’s underused. Not that I believe everything should be rewritten in Rust. That’s just stupid.
As a C++ developer Rust's borrow checker is very interesting - it promises to solve my issues with C++ without the issues that make other languages (ie Java, Python...) have in the real world. (remember we choose C++ for a reason, Java isn't correct for our application - if Java is correct you should use that instead)
If you learn Rust, you'll find that you'd choose it over C/++ even without the brrow checker. Every little part of the development experience is just so much better.
Maybe. I have millions of lines of c++ and making rust work with them will often be more work than just implementing the feature in c++
How does one qualify how much a language needs to be used?
Are you saying Rust is being used in places that you feel C/C++ should be used, and you don't think Rust belongs? Or maybe you are saying Rust is being used in places where C/C++ are not typically used, and you don't feel it belongs there?
The closest thing to context you've given is that you feel Rust has flaws (all languages do), and that Ada is perhaps safer. It's really hard to give any kind of answer without a properly fleshed out question.
you will get better answers to your question, and a more productive discussion in general, if you leave your subjective opinion out of the question.
it’s not fully memory safe (there are some programming languages that are even safer, like Ada)?
for example, you might ask instead "why has Rust gotten widespread adoption, that previous safety-focused languages like Ada did not enjoy?"
I was looking into Rust a few months ago and noticed that most jobs listed seemed to be Web 3, crypto scams. It doesn't seem to be in high demand, from the corporate side of things.
Corporate wants people to port their COBOL code into Java 8.
Most of them have decided on a tech tech a decade ago and they're not going to change anything about it unless they absolutely have to, whether that's Java or C# or Python or Ruby..
Rust is gaining traction, but mostly for new projects or big revamps, and there's a lot more shitty old code to maintain than there are opportunities to develop anything new. Besides, most companies don't need Rust (or C or C++ for that matter), JVM/.NET/NodeJS/Go is fast enough for even intense corporate workloads and doesn't require people to put in the effort to make everything perfectly sound.
I expect Rust to be inevitable in embedded development, but yeah, that space moves slow, so give it another ten years or so. I will say that embedded is practically jumping on Rust, compared to how glacially it normally moves. You've got big vendors committing to offering Rust APIs, because many of their customers just don't want to code C/C++ anymore.
Corporates are still looking for Java 1.8 Or so I've heard.
On a superficial level it's a lot nicer than Ada for people who didn't learn to program on Pascal. Rust's real flaws don't show up until you need to do large refractors and change your application's memory model.