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 (1 children)

How? You still have to check wether it’s NULL or not.

I think that's the parent's point: in C/C++ you don't have to deal with null. You can just pass it around and potentially start unintended/undefined behavior. While in Rust, it's a compile-time error if you don't unwrap the option somehow (eg. if let Some(content) = optional_content).

So yes it's more concise and "beautiful", but you'll probably bite your own hand at some point playing this game

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 years ago (1 children)

How is it more beautiful? You have to deal with null pointers when you want to use the pointer anyway, if you don't you will get a runtime error, or worse, your program will keep running in an unintended state.

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

yes, that was exactly my point. You can just use a pointer without checking it, which is aesthetically more pleasing, but will produce garbage :)