hey /g/ what are your opinions on rust and why people should

poo in roo

>>61436413
Rust adds unnecessary and sometimes counter productive safety precautions and thus it makes developers frustrated.
>>61436477
Rust isn't OOP, C++ is, idiot

File: cell.rs.png (156KB, 1304x1573px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1304x1573px

I've tried to play with rust to have a practical feeling before criticising a new langage.
It was a horrible experience.
Just look at this snap from the src file cell.rs and you won't need any more explanation why rust must be avoided.

>>61437605
You don't need those #stable attributes

It's OK, I guess, but it's changing too much to really replace C & C++. It's just too contrived for most people.

File: IMG_2619.png (673KB, 660x711px) Image search: [Google]

673KB, 660x711px

Rust is basically: social justice, the language, just read the CoC. If some Rustnigger comes in telling you it's not important, ask him to take it down and see how quickly he'll deflect and get angry.

They've taken one or two old ideas from ADA, sprinkled in a linter and code analyser that most companies integrate into their C++ build system and called it "safe".

Then they go around assaulting communities and cursing programmers for writing "potentially unsafe code".

Their aim is to be the gate keepers of system programming, because they've seen the power they wield over people in other SJW take overs:

- Firefox: now with DRM and donates to feminism. Main driver of
- GitHub: cancer the community, gives Rust more facility and attention than it deserves
- systemd: a slow burn attempt to infiltrate kernel dev.

They even made an entire OS out of it, something is not right here. This isn't a language or a community, it's a cult.

Rust can be, in theory, as fast as C++ for certain things, but it can never be as expressive and it can never have the kind of code inlining that their module system pretty much prohibits. They've gone to the length of incremental compilation just to account for their module bullshit, it's hilarious to watch them melt down over this.

Fuck Rust and spit on all its advocates.

I tried to take rust seriously but they are incompetent and focus on all the wrong things.

Basically >>61437770

Until all of that is fixed it's not going to be used by anyone for any reason.

>>61437770
>and it can never have the kind of code inlining that their module system pretty much prohibits.
Can you elaborate on this? Because C//C++'s include/linkage makes inlining between "modules" pretty tough.

>>61437770
People that shit on firefox and systemd are the same people that shill chrome and windows

Prove me wrong, wincuck

>>61437770
It's objectively takes more skills writing a Rust program that compiles that writing C program that works. That being said, I like having GC, Rust doesn't fix any of my concernts.

However I would rather work with Rust than C++

>>61436413

PROS: Allows safe code to be (in theory) as fast as C

CONS: places a lot of burden on the developer with the borrow checker solution, has the ugliest syntax of any language made the last decade

>>61437793
You can have inline functions/templates in the headers. If you ever disassembled code from c++ you'll see a lot of functions repeated all over the place just because it runs faster to have it cached locally and avoid the function call. There's also link time optimisation possible with some build systems.

The funny thing is Rust thinks it's main competition is what is available publicly but these homeless McArthur foundation funded leftists don't know that large companies have custom build systems that make C++ compile even faster code with a huge number of rapidly changing libraries. Rust will never take off in the corporate space, why would anyone waste their time with it for private projects.

>>61437827
>wincuck
The Mozilla shills have arrived

>>61437605
>play with rust
Why do you browse the std code instead of plainly using the docs? Do you do that in C++ too?

>>61437770
>Firefox: now with DRM
There would be no DRM if it wasn't in the standard. If firefox didn't have DRM while it's the standard then /g/ would cry about it.

>>61437972
Mozilla was on the W3C committee and objected to it, shortly afterwards SJWs staged a coup in what was the internet's first outrage-porn character assassination.

>>61438004
They did object, but a standard is still a standard

I'm really sick of this safe meme, data execution prevention makes it obsolete

>>61438811
>what is ROP

>>61437936
Do you code without looking at examples of recognised authorities? Such as the sources of the language itself. It's full of good practices.

>>61437770
>- Firefox: now with DRM and donates to feminism. Main driver of

it's true?

>>61437770

This is why Macron won.

The far-right are paranoid loonies.

>>61437605
What's wrong with it? It's just a bunch of trivial trait implementations for Cell.

Some of those are provably the only fully generic implementations you could have for those traits, due to free theorems.