Rust Programming

8306 readers

12 users here now

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

What is Rust NOT suitable for, architecturally? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 3 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

From a language architecture standpoint and not an ecosystem standpoint, what might be some things where you'd really not want to use Rust, either because of some limitation that prevents it from doing it or just because it'd be massively annoying to write to the point of significantly reduced productivity? What about Rust makes it unsuitable, and what language paradigms are the best for it?

I hear a lot about how the things that Rust is not good for, JIT compilation with a garbage collector is usually the best solution, and vice versa. How true is this?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 years ago

Rust kinda sucks for writting windows guis. This guy at microsoft spent like two years making bindings and you ended up needing to use unsafe everywhere.

This looks like a big one and common theme. You can in theory wrap any C API with Rust but it does not mean it is possible to make it safe in Rust - the programming models may be incompatible. Worst is that in C you can use different practices around "ownership" of objects and mix them up in single program - this will make it very difficult/impossible to wrap it in safe Rust and waste a lot of time trying.

It would be good to have some good practices around this so people can recognize what is worth wrapping and what is better done from scratch in Rust.