[HN Gopher] The Last Thing Rust Needs (2019)
___________________________________________________________________
The Last Thing Rust Needs (2019)
Author : nazgulsenpai
Score : 23 points
Date : 2022-06-27 20:03 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (h2co3.github.io)
(TXT) w3m dump (h2co3.github.io)
| himujjal wrote:
| Sorry for asking. But why even add new features in a language
| every year. Why not make it like once in 5 years? And focus on
| fixing and improving the language and the compiler.
|
| Rust is already a huge language. The editions are also 3 years
| apart. And between them are tons of new features.
|
| Strange. EcmaScript/JavaScript kind of adds like 5-6 features
| every year. Python.
|
| C on the other hand is great. What you wrote in 1990 still is
| understandable today? (not that C is the best language out there)
| stusmall wrote:
| > C on the other hand is great. What you wrote in 1990 still is
| understandable today?
|
| That's a weird example. In my career I've noticed big stylistic
| changes over the years in C. I can usually point out C code
| from the 90s right away. Usually it just has dated style or is
| missing what are now common libraries or features. C didn't
| have a standard bool type until C99 which is usually a good
| sign of code's age. I remember once I came across some mid-90s
| code written with the pre-ANSI style of function declarations.
| It was the first time I'd ever seen it and I was confused on
| how it even compiled.
|
| Outside stylistic things, there are a few idioms and features
| that I've never seen in newer code bases that might be lost on
| some newer developers. I can't think of many times I've seen
| longjump used in modern C.
| avgcorrection wrote:
| With language editions, the new features that Rust adds will be
| mostly a liability for the compiler writers, not the users. So
| sure you could ask that: why are the language implementors
| creating more maintenance work for themselves? Well maybe they
| think those features are worth it.
| smitty1e wrote:
| There seems to be a bit of an arms race between some of the
| languages.
|
| The difference between "New Hotness" and "Feature-itis" is
| subjective, but I do enjoy the new python featues immensely.
| 3a2d29 wrote:
| > (not that C is the best language out there)
|
| I think there are many people who might actually agree with
| this. Tbh, I think anyone making the argument the other is
| making, would rather Rust follow the path of C than the path of
| C++.
| notriddle wrote:
| How are you planning to limit the rate at which new features
| are added?
|
| * Restricting the rate of new releases doesn't necessarily mean
| you're reducing the average feature development rate. It might
| instead mean that you're releasing hundreds of new features per
| release, which is definitely worse than releasing a hundred
| versions with one feature each, because it can force people to
| rush things out to meet a release window instead of releasing
| them when they're actually ready.
|
| * Restricting the number of feature bullet points per release
| doesn't necessarily mean you're reducing the amount of
| functionality being developed. It might instead mean that
| people try to develop huge "super-features" that technically
| count as one bullet point but actually gets used in dozens of
| different ways. Super-features are an easy way to wind up with
| a system where everything is possible, but the stuff you do
| every day is more difficult than it needs to be.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| > not that C is the best language out there
|
| I've heard a professor say "C is the best assembler out there"
| ... felt insightful
| phkahler wrote:
| C++ gets new features regularly because there is a comitte
| whose job is to do that.
|
| The same was true of OpenGL until they moved on to Vulcan, and
| they seem to be getting the idea that things dont really have
| to change so much. Or maybe they're just shifting to making
| other "standards" instead.
|
| To me Rust is more of a toolchain development at this point,
| where language features are added where it makes sense rather
| than being a goal.
| dralley wrote:
| A lot of the "features" - most of them even - being added to
| Rust nowadays are just filling holes in the language. Things
| you might easily assume you could do that for arbitrary
| implementation reasons, you cannot. A lot of them are basically
| "fixing and improving the language" IMO.
|
| In addition, frequent releases do a better job of incentivizing
| taking the time to get the design right, because the
| consequence of missing a release window is that it gets delayed
| a few weeks, or maybe a few months, instead of a few years. You
| can totally see this happen with C++ for example.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-06-27 23:02 UTC)