Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 3rd Apr 2013 15:41 UTC
Mozilla & Gecko clones Big news from Mozilla and Samsung today: the two have been working on a new browsing engine together, developed from the ground-up to be completely new, and it's written entirely in Rust, a new safe systems language developed by Mozilla. "Rust, which today reached v0.6, has been in development for several years and is rapidly approaching stability. It is intended to fill many of the same niches that C++ has over the past decades, with efficient high-level, multi-paradigm abstractions, and offers precise control over hardware resources. But beyond that, it is safe by default, preventing entire classes of memory management errors that lead to crashes and security vulnerabilities. Rust also features lightweight concurrency primitives that make it easy for programmers to leverage the power of the many CPU cores available on current and future computing platforms." The work is on-going, but of course, all code is out there right now.
Thread beginning with comment 557459
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: this language is fugly
by Rahul on Wed 3rd Apr 2013 19:04 UTC in reply to "this language is fugly"
Rahul
Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, Rust is at 0.6 and the syntax is at a rapidly evolving stage. So feel free to get involved if you are motivated enough to do something concrete.

Personally, I don't see how the Ruby syntax is going to be more appealing to C++ programmers which is the target of Mozilla.

Reply Parent Score: 2

cyrilleberger Member since:
2006-02-01

Personally, I don't see how the Ruby syntax is going to be more appealing to C++ programmers which is the target of Mozilla.


Personally I don't see how the rust syntax is going to be appealing to C++ programmers. Especially since Rust is meant as a replacement of C++, while Ruby is not. Personally, I use C++ and Ruby, but for different purposes, and I wouldn't use C++ for what I do in Ruby (ie scripting, prototyping) or Ruby for C++. Different purposes, different syntax.

Now why rust is not appealing for C++ developers (at least me), it is needlessly different from C++.

Rust: fn recursive_factorial(n: int) -> int
C++: int recursive_factorial(int n)

Rust: for(somevector.each |&name|)
C++: for(auto name : somevector)

And so on. Meaning that a C++ developers would have to anyway learn a new programming language.

It is true that having a new syntax is not necessarily a bad idea, however, from looking at the rust examples it looks as quirky as C++, but in different ways. So why jump ship from C++ to Rust if it is not for improvements ?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: this language is fugly
by renox on Thu 4th Apr 2013 12:30 in reply to "RE[2]: this language is fugly"
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

Agreed, in the languages I know there is either
for <iterator name> in <set> do <code>
or
<set>.each |<iterator name>| { <code> }

But Rust use both for and each??

Also in Rust { a * x + b } is different from { a * x + b; }, the first one returns a value, the second one returns (), nice heh?
No!!! If they find return too verbose why didn't they use the '^' operator as Smalltalk did?

I'm not sure that the use of ',' to separate case in the 'match' statement is a good idea either..

Reply Parent Score: 2