Everything got rewritten in Rust
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios
Hello. Is Rust really the best programming language?
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/05/two-core-unix-like-utilities-sudo-and-su-are-getting-rewrites-in-rust/
A programmer really hates Rust video https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=ksTyCQwHGro
I see more problems than benefits of using Rust
I fear that WebAssembly might give web developers to much control that might lead to cracking of systems using a browser where WebAssembly is enabled.
But I'm unable to tell if my fear is realistic.
Rust without WebAssembly, why not.
Just getting into programing, what are the pro's and cons with it?
Pros:
.Memory safety - won't let you do unsafe things unless you use unsafe {}.
.Full book on Rust website https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/book/
.Lots of libraries at https://crates.io/
Cons:
.Programs are getting super bloated : 20x size of the same program written in C++.
.Compiler requires a ton of system memory, explained in a video from post above
.Toxic community, also explained in the video
.People try to rewrite all existing programs in Rust for no other reason than Rust is "safe"
Cons:
The language changes all the time; you'll need to constantly be updating your source code to be compilable with newer compiler versions.
Crates.io includes both free and nonfree software
The Rust Foundation's trademark policy contains distribution restrictions on freedom #2, making the software (compiler, cargo package manager, etc.) nonfree.
In another thread[1] you seemed to be welcome of Rust's updated trademark policy. Has something changed in the meantime? Or is there something bad in the policy that we missed back then?
[1] https://trisquel.info/en/forum/rust-has-updated-its-trademark-policy
I expect more information will be coming out about that in the future so I'll defer to that :)
I didn't watch the video (because even if there's an interface (invidious) between the evil and I, that is still using the evil's platform where the video is.
The first con is enough for me to loose all interest in learning Rust (if I had any) and all the other cons are worsening the situation except (maybe) the last that is just business as usual: being lead by trends instead of common sense.
That's great that they safe memory for something that is super bloated and that requires a ton of system memory to compile, what would it be without that?
So, now, rust is used to “save memory” without having to think about that while using old and robust programming languages actually saves a lot more memory (except if you act stupidly which would certainly be noticeable by testing the program anyway).
Not save memory, but make memory "safe" : avoid memory leaks. It prevents user from making mistakes that lead memory leaks and vulnerabilities related to improper memory usage. The compiler will need to thoroughly check your code and it has side effects listed in Cons.
I wonder how many of the cons are purely side effects of avoiding memory leaks. Most of the most popular languages out there are memory-safe as well and don't have such problems. The difference between them (e.g. Java, Go) and Rust is the approach used — Rust has automatic memory management while those mainstream languages use a garbage collector.
I wonder whether it'd be possible to design automatic memory management schema that's compatible with dynamic linking and doesn't result in overgrown binaries
Amazon is putting money in Rust development, we will see in the future if the developers will be able to fix Rust issues.
OK, I misunderstood, thanks for this clarification.
I'm a freedom enjoyer and that sounds like a big no for me. Seems like a pain to maintain.
Rubén should consider rewriting in rust all packages in trisquel repositories
I am considering rewriting myself into prustpero.
You could become avrustm.
UPDATE: we may be able to enroll andyproust in the writing effort.
I assume you mean andyprust.
Well, I'd rather be rusty than crusty, so go right ahead.
By the way, does Andy Proust comes from the same family as Marcel Proust did?
No, Proust was French and I'm from German and Flanders stock. I have one French great grand-father, so I would be about 1/16th French.
I tried to read some Marcel Proust, his 'À la recherche du temps perdu' translated into English, but I get lost by all the descriptions of French society. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I've read a bit about Charlemagne and Louis the XIV and Napoleon, and I feel like I understand a bit about why the French are the way they are, but it doesn't make it easier to read and understand their famous authors. It reminds me of when I read 'Journey to the West' by Wu Cheng'en - not being Chinese I felt like I was missing more than 50% of the understanding.
> Louis the XIV
I am pretty sure Louis Picamoles has been playing VIII for most of his career.
As for the other ones you mentioned, I am not sure. You are probably conflating Charles Ollivon and Olivier Magne, and Napolioni Nalaga was the one playing XIV. Not quite rusty people anyway. Clearly, you have been making up stuff again, Andy P the Rough.
I like to think that if either Louis Lynagh or Louis Rees-Zammit were signed by a French team, either one of them could play the XIV. At which point, of course, whichever one was Louis the XIV first would have to be crowned emperor and moved into the Palace of Versailles as his personal residence.
At which point he would have to declare war on the Spanish.
Now, I wonder if Paul Magnette is the small relative of Olivier Magne even though they don't play in the same fields (the latter playing in a far more violent field…).
>"the latter playing in a far more violent field"
Can't get a much more violent field than socialist politics, at least according to Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and Mao.
French Society was different back then, different from now and different from royal (and imperial) France.
I would envision those kind of descriptions as a way to know more about France from that time even though somehow confusing.
Yes but, wasn't the revolution largely a response to the conditions of imperial France under Louis the XIV and his successors, and wasn't Napolean largely a result of and response to the revolution. And of course, the reign of Louis the XIV had its roots in the Carolingian Empire.
Nowadays, Louis the ⅩⅣ is rarely seen as imperial (even though it was in a way and was perceived as such back then), this because Napoleon's imperial pretensions made him the emperor par excellence compared to kings prior to the revolution that where kings of the France kingdom.
I don't know what to answer to your question because I know it's more complex then that, but not being a specialist, I fear to say some non-sens.
As far as I know, the role of the (free-)thinkers like François-Marie Arouet AKA Voltaire is often underestimated.
As far as I know, Napoleon took advantage of both the revolution and a kind of nostalgia about the time where France was a kingdom (one after the other).
Of course summarizing those types of events is always tricky.
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios