Truthpill me on Rust

truthpill me on Rust
no memes

Attached: 28c41642a3c8d4407ae379e053108eec_original.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&crop=faces&w=1552&h=873& (1552x873, 225K)

Other urls found in this thread:

semver.org/
doc.rust-lang.org/book/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

SJW infested garbage
A community that's full of retard shills
A syntax so ambiguous that one character can mean 4 fucking things, made only for jerking off to unreadable code.
Philosophy of impossible safety, defaulting to unsafe code inside the main library, but who cares, it's a selling point!
Watch as any Rust tranny is going to try to debunk this. They're too busy swallowing HRT pills than to actually write something productive.

fpbp perfect description

Very fast procedural safety-oriented language with a hint of functional. Somewhat steep learning curve if you don't get the hang of the ownership/borrow/lifetime system which basically forces you to write good code. You can go full low level and make operating fucking kernels in it or throw that out the window and use high level concepts like polymorphism (although limited). Relatively new so you won't see it everywhere for a while, mainly crypto is picking it up but cloudflare and some other relevant names are picking it up too.

The main response you'll get in Jow Forums is something related to the sexual orientation of the developers, although that's not related to the language and ahahhaha as I'm typing this would you look at that! I'll gladly debunk you, cnile-user.
>sjws/trannies/people who i dont like
Does not affect the language! Not an argument, fuck off back to Jow Forums
>A syntax so ambiguous that one character can mean 4 things
You're thinking of C++, Rust often enforces more explicit code to avoid that very thing. If you think you're still right, feel free to post an example.
>Defaulting to unsafe
Yeah, and you completely missed the point. The point of unsafe{} is to clearly mark unsafe operations as such, and many things can't be completely safe (ex: even a linked list). There's no "defaulting", there's code that can be provably safe at compile time, and code that cannot.

>operating fucking kernels
Nice. It's 5am, meant to type "operating systems/kernels"

The language is not limited in what you can write in it, so don't be silly and think it is.
It's quite unambiguous, with an easy to follow syntax imho.
The borrow checker is quite a different concept but it makes sure you write good, memory safe, code. Which is great, because it means: no Garbage Collector, and no free()s anywhere.
People have already written all sorts of things in it, e.g. OSs, kernels, loads of programming languages, game engines (including many games), &c.

>Does not affect the language! Not an argument, fuck off back to Jow Forums
Imagine getting denied community help because you're banned for having a political opinion that's right of Stalin. I'm sorry but it's their position to bring in politics, I fight fire with fire.
>You're thinking of C++, Rust often enforces more explicit code to avoid that very thing. If you think you're still right, feel free to post an example.
'x', 'a, &'a - what fucking explicit code are you talking about? Rust's syntax is an absolute hell to read, if you still think that it's as clear as any other language, fucking see the async implementation, it was the tipping point when I lost ANY respect for Rust.
>There's no "defaulting",
Yes, however Rust uses unsafe() to an absolute hell, this misses the point where you said
>safety-oriented

fpbp

>denied community help because politics
No, you get denied for going "lmao fuck trannies and niggers and faggots fjfkgjdjgjdsf I can't contain myself and have some human decency for the people around me"
>'x' 'a &'a
single quotes have always been used for characters in low level languages. the latter 2 are identical meaning, first being "lifetime" and second being "borrow with specific lifetime"
>what explicit code
explicit typecasting, something even c doesn't enforce, no ++ op and often required in expressions with many () where two meanings could be interpreted depending on how you read it
>it's absolute hell to read
C++ is still much, much uglier for me and I've only used Rust for 2 months (vs. 5yr~ ish of C++)
>It uses unsafe, "missing the point"
That's why only features that have been tested to every extreme on every target platform make it into the stable branch if they have unsafe code in them. You missed the point again, the point of unsafe is to mark it as such. If it's stable then that's fine.

(what I'm trying to say with the code ugliness thing is that it's subjective, if it's unclear in that post)

It has a better logo than Jow Forums will ever create

I've been learning it recently and I'm starting to understand why so many people are shilling it 24/7.
It's still a bit verbose and a pain to read compared to the languages I usually like but now that I am getting a bit of experience with it it's not as bad as when I knew nothing about the language.

>venereal disease mascot.jpg
If it wasn't completely shit its discussion would stay mostly in the daily programming threads, it doesn't though. The obvious faked interest is part of the leftist advertising tactics, hence this threads existence. Everyone knows you're rust shills. My advice is to kys now, you're going to do it anyway, why wait?

>and ahahhaha as I'm typing this would you look at that!

Attached: de15df26e9bf61c4f5672a08dc60a50b.jpg (499x481, 28K)

Rust can't even produce executables or libraries by itself, it handicap. For a comparison Its basically the slow bloated frontend of a website that's written so poorly it can't compete with other projects using the same backend.

>MUH UNSAFE
Daily reminder 99% safe code is still better than 0% safe code you get with C/C++.

Honest reply here?
I actually think Rust might be a good idea, but it's still in its infant stage so it hasn't really executed that idea yet.
I am worried about the community and their politics eventually corrupting that idea and the language falling apart. If you took away the rust community I think it would be a strong candidate for the future of systems programming, but unfortuntely I don't see that happening at all.

> it's still in its infant stage
Wtf is "infant stage"? Rust 1.0 was released 4 years ago and it has been backward-compatible since then, nowadays Rust is in the top 15 languages on Github and is used in production by Cloudflare, Dropbox, Microsoft (in VS Code) and many others. The performance is on par with C and crates.io is full of libraries. Rust is the bleeding edge of wasm development and the go-to language for wasm projects. What else do you want?

You convinced me tot check out rust by warding off those retards.
Good job user

Attached: getting-started-with-rust.jpg (720x960, 151K)

The only real criticism of C is that it's dangerous, correct? Because Rust sounds pretty cool if it actually does what it claims. All languages that have tried to replace C (or even just improve on C) have pretty much failed. But making the one improvement that is actually necessary seems like a step in the right direction.

I think it's the only low level language I could stomach realistically to use. That and crystal, but rust is way more popular.
Mainly because of web assembly though, I think it could be really cool to have actual fast things on a website, JS is pretty good for what it does, but using rust is like 20x faster, so for intensive things, it could actually be cool.

C is just too bulky and slow to develop with for me personally, I like that rust has most of the typical stuff you'd want to see in any language.
Syntax is a bit weird though, sometimes it just looks like moonrunes


impl ArrayMap for [U; 0] {
fn map V>(&self, _: F) -> [V; 0] { [] }
}

>All languages that have tried to replace C (or even just improve on C) have pretty much failed.
C++

Safety centered language, will rape your ass over it. The only way to get decent performance out of it is to explicitly disable safety features, at which point it's just a worse version of C++.

jesus what the fuck is that

C++ already allows safer and faster code than rust if you adhere to the latest standard, the core guidelines and use the latest features.
In C++ you do not have a BC to constantly wrestle with which just slows you down and gets in your way.

Is that deliberately bad code like you could write with C or is that considered normal?

are there multiple C++ latest standard apologists on this board or is it just one person with a severe case of autism?

This is rustfags' idea of readable and clean code. Holy shit just 40% yourselves already you mentally ill homunculi.

If it's o ok to shill for crap like rust, then it's ok to shill for latest language standards, too. C++ isn't stuck in the 70s you know.

It's syntax is terrible unintuitive trash that looks absolutely horrendous and this is coming from a C++ programmer of 15+ years.

I wouldn't really call Rust a C replacement. It's far closer to being a C++ replacement.

Imagine being so mentally handicapped you're only able to learn a single language's syntax, so you go shitpost under every piece of code you don't instantly understand about how bad the syntax is, without spending a minute to actually try and learn the syntax of the language.

Now imagine doing this while shilling for a language they hold annual International Obfuscated Code Contest.

> C++ already allows safer code than rust if you don't make any mistakes
big if true

>The only way to get decent performance out of it is to explicitly disable safety features
What the FUCK are you talking about based retard?

>In C++ you do not have a BC to constantly wrestle with which just slows you down and gets in your way.
In my experience, "wrestling with the borrow checker" generally means you're trying to do something particularly dumb, and you should step back and consider what you're trying to accomplish.

C++ itself is a perfectly good C replacement. There has been no good reason to use C for anything other than legacy for 20 years now, but especially so after C++11/14/17.

Is there any difference between rust and C++ used with functional style and smart pointers?

1. Borrow Checker, which is much more than just smart pointers. For example, it enforces thread safety.
2. Sum types and pattern matching
3. Standard build system and package manager with a centralized packet repository
4. Free from decades of legacy shit

Tbh cool concept and all, syntax doesn't look bad but it's nothing amazing but the problem is that nobody really cares about it so I didn't bother continuing learning it.

Rust doesn't have an official async implementation yet

Every time I've posted newbie questions about Rust in dpt I've gotten really good help

I think it's an implementation of a .map method.
Most code isn't like that, but it's just one of the times where I looked at it and was like "wtf is going on"

it's so you can do this
let squares = [1, 2, 3].map(|x| x * x);


It's not that bad since you don't really "write" it often, but you still have to write it if you are creating implementations and macros etc.

criticising syntax is a brainlet red flag and is usually invalid criticism. it's very easy to look at a language and come up with some superficial case for it being "ugly" or "unintuitive".

Yeah, imagine looking at C code after learning Pascal, what a fucking mess it must have looked like.

Rust seems fine, but I'm a dynamic language branlet so eh.
Version numbers are meaningless.

julia is better

I am getting the impression that it is a better language than C++, but that it has no chance of replacing it.

You're gaslighting devs. The borrow checker is stupid, it rejects safe programs. It gets in your way as soon as you start writing complex logic, which is why Rust makes solving difficult tasks twice as hard.

> Version numbers are meaningless.
semver.org/

What book do you recommend to learn rust?

Compile times are too slow and the syntax is downright arcane.

that's exactly what happened user, I was typing that part and the thread updated and I see angry cnile-user's post

doc.rust-lang.org/book/

Avoided writing it so far for these reasons:

- It's a C++ replacement so the level of bloat and compilation slowness is the same or worse
- However, C++ interop is still bad and requires a bunch of clunky boilerplate wrapper code
- Cargo is fucked and focused on being "easy" rather than powerful
- Bindings for popular libraries are still very immature

I will likely end up writing it eventually though.

Can you please at least make an effort to be professional? Why are we still fielding these plebbit-tier SJW vs MRA battles here?

>The level of bloat is the same
The standard library is very minimal and if you want to write embedded you can choose to not use it entirely, parts that are available without a standard library are included in the core library (for example, targets that don't have a heap or concept of a filesystem)
>cargo focused on being easy
It just aims to lower the complexity to do common tasks, like how you type "make" with Makefiles to just build the damn thing, the build system itself is very powerful and can easily do things like download a C library, make it and link it as a part of the build process, buildscripts are fantastic as they allow you to write Rust to build Rust.

>It wasn’t always so clear, but the Rust programming language is fundamentally about empowerment
stopped reading there

You could read the rest of the sentence and you'd know it's not what you're trying to paint it out to be.

I don't mean the standard library I mean the language itself.
The standard library is actually missing a good async implementation (tokio doesn't count) so it's currently a no-go for threaded programs.

Being able to download shit is a gimmick meme feature that I can't wait until these people writing these build systems get over. Stop building attack vectors for malicious code into my build system. Just show me the build/link commands and let me edit them or combine them with external build programs. That's all a build system needs to do. Being able to "write Rust" aka arbitrary code that introduces nondeterminism and crashes in your buildsystem is actually bad.

Different use case.

Amazing language that has everything you could want, all the type safety, compiler warnings, zero cost memory safety, a great, built in package manager, module system, true macros that allow you to implement pretty much any language feature and zero cost abstraction you could possibly imagine...

But the compile times are horrendous and it's unlikely to improve as much as they'd need to.

Where does the actual book start and the marketing wank end?
>59 posts/33 unique
Hmm..."unique" "individuals" giving testimonials. These threads are spam/advertising.

>You're gaslighting devs.
What?

>The borrow checker is stupid, it rejects safe programs.
Yes, but my point is that it doesn't generally reject safe code that you would actually want to write. There are specific cases it can't cope with, but they're not something you should end up in without thinking about what you're doing.

>It gets in your way as soon as you start writing complex logic,
That's not been my experience at all.

>Where does the actual book start and the marketing wank end?
At the end of the introduction.

>Hmm..."unique" "individuals" giving testimonials. These threads are spam/advertising.
Are you a moron?

>The BC is dumb and rejects safe code
>It gets in your way as soon as you start writing complex logic
Are these people trying to put C 1:1 into Rust or what?? I'm working on a graphics framework which is rather complex and yet I've never had any of these issues (in anything I worked on in Rust for that matter). The only time it 'got in my way' was when I wrote actual really bad code but I didn't realize until it pointed out the security hole which was easily fixable.

Attached: 1553949352269.jpg (248x274, 37K)

Rust and C++ are both attempts at making a better C, and in that regard, Rust is a better "better C" than C++.
However, most computers have less than 64k of RAM, so we should all keep using C.

If allocating is a problem just go #[no_std] lol

How can you have a security hole in a graphics API?

Attached: wrestling the borrow checker.jpg (1400x1154, 179K)

>Rust 1.0 was released 4 years ago and it has been backward-compatible since then
Not according to the compatibly notes in the rust change log. They break backwards compatibility all the time.

>Are you a moron?
I considered rust so I must be.

>threaded programs
I have it on good authority that concurrency is bad

>That's all a build system needs to do.
In fact, there should not be a build system in the first place.

Personally I'm not sure there should even be a compiler. A good macro system is all you need.

You're right, those SSA passes should definitely be a macro.

Rust is for the elites

Attached: rmm19vt8vp911.png (2512x1018, 421K)

>Rust
>no memes
DivisionByZeroException