Title. I’m looking for a concrete answer for this.

  • 1984@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    None of the languages give the same runtime guarantees as Rust without having a garbage collector.

    I think people in this thread are putting Rust in the same bucket as garbage-collecting languages, but there is a performance cost to garbage collecting. Rust doesn’t have a garbage collector and this is why Rust is very fast and still can guarantee a lot of runtime errors won’t happen (unlike in C, c++ etc).

    But it’s really complicated to write code in Rust. Not the basic code but if you have lifetimes on things or use async code and want to change it, you may have to spend hours reworking your entire program.

    • GBU_28@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      4 days ago

      Agree. I get very grumpy refactoring async rust. It’s the only time at the point in my career that I think “what the fuck I don’t know anything about anything I think I’m a lizard”

      • sbv
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        4 days ago

        Async Rust has a long way to go. Eventually someone will figure out a decent abstraction. That’ll be good.

    • akkajdh999@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 days ago

      None of the languages give the same runtime guarantees as Rust without having a garbage collector.

      If you only count mature languages. There’s a lot of small immature languages. For example Inko.

    • leisesprecher@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 days ago

      It would be really great to have some “Python layer” on top of Rust.

      My current work is mostly data mangling web services (Java/Spring Boot) and there’s simply no way I could convince anyone (including myself) that Rust is a viable alternative in terms of development speed.