undefined | Better HN

0 pointspcwalton10y ago0 comments

> I think it's a risky move.

> It's just... wow, that's pretty mission critical for what I gather is still a beta-phase tool.

I think this is very '90s thinking. Extreme "if it's not C++, you can't deploy it!" conservatism about programming languages hasn't been true for well over a decade. Paul Graham has written some nice essays about this very phenomenon.

Also, Rust is not "a beta-phase tool".

New languages are much easier to deploy since the PL Renaissance. There are a few holdout industries that still stick with C++ no matter what, such as games, but they'll come around eventually. :)

0 comments

nickpsecurity10y ago

You've been in discussions on this forum where I slam both C and C++. I'm clearly against it unless I absolutely have to use it due to its issues. That's why your strawman is more amusing than most. My actual argument was that new tools are usually unstable in terms of features, implementation bugs, and (with compilers) performance. So, default recommendation for mission-critical apps are mature tools whose strengths and weaknesses are well-understood so pro's can use them robustly.

Back to beta-phase claim, you're saying the core features and compiler of Rust are no longer in development or testing? Totally stable now with only extensions, library features, and optimizations being added? If so, that's good news and I'll drop that claim in the future. Otherwise, it's in the beta phase. Another hint would be existence of any bugs with core functionality in your compiler or libraries.

Again, though, if the spec and core functionality are frozen with all bugs fixed then I won't call it beta. Is it there yet?

pcwaltonOP10y ago

Yes, 1.0 is stable and the language will not change in backwards incompatible ways. It's been that way for months (google "rust stability deliverable").

"All bugs fixed" rules out every language in existence except CompCert, so I don't think that's a very interesting metric.

nickpsecurity10y ago

Good to know on stability part. Far as bugs fixed, it's more on the lines of day-to-day use of the language in common scenarios. Are people getting unnecessary troubles out of the compiler? Typically don't for most languages as they work out most of them in common idioms and library functions in first, few years. If they're serious rather than 1-3 people's hobby, that is.

I certainly won't expect it to be bug free. Nice comeback with CompCert, though. ;)

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointspcwalton10y ago0 comments

> I think it's a risky move.

> It's just... wow, that's pretty mission critical for what I gather is still a beta-phase tool.

Also, Rust is not "a beta-phase tool".

New languages are much easier to deploy since the PL Renaissance. There are a few holdout industries that still stick with C++ no matter what, such as games, but they'll come around eventually. :)

0 comments

nickpsecurity10y ago

Again, though, if the spec and core functionality are frozen with all bugs fixed then I won't call it beta. Is it there yet?

pcwaltonOP10y ago

Yes, 1.0 is stable and the language will not change in backwards incompatible ways. It's been that way for months (google "rust stability deliverable").

"All bugs fixed" rules out every language in existence except CompCert, so I don't think that's a very interesting metric.

nickpsecurity10y ago

I certainly won't expect it to be bug free. Nice comeback with CompCert, though. ;)

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse