Rust Programming

8306 readers

10 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] 0 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

It's pretty lousy for exploratory programming, where you load your current application to memory, then start adding a new function onto it, hot reloading on every change and testing your changes and external interfaces in the REPL. Rust's best approach to this seems to be evcxr, which is quite janky. So in practice you probably end up writing unit tests or dummy binaries that replicate similar behavior.

Examples of language implementations that are good at this: python (especially with ipython), most common lisp implementations.