Hacker News Reader

Comment by jandrewrogers | Hacker News Reader

Rust needs stronger compile-time features and capabilities if it wants to be a better C++. This is critical functionality for many types of safety.

View on HN

Would you be able to elaborate on some specific ones? I’m just curious. My space is mainly data engineering and Rust is making major moves there along with the entire Python ecosystem.

Rust’s main point is memory safety which is why it’s also a preferred language to reengineer cryptography libraries.

I’m interested in the embedded space (along with AI applications) and believe rust will be a language of choice for the entire toolchain here.

So I’m definitely interested in what gaps you see.

There's more than just memory safety for high assurance apps. Personally, I think Rust is heading in the right direction, but I am not sure it's complexity will ever be smooth or enjoyable for some. I feel you get most, if not all, that Rust is trying to achieve with Ada/SPARK right now for high-integrity, mission-critical apps along with a proven legacy: jet fighter software, railway controls, avionics, embedded, space, etc...

Take a look at the Adacore site, especially the free books (PDF):

https://www.adacore.com/books

Ada for the Embedded C Developer

Embedded Spark & Ada Use Cases

Are you trying to claim that Rust isn't safer than C++ for some kind of safety? I can't really see how you would argue that. It's memory safe, and it has a much stronger type system which reduces the chance of non-memory safety bugs. What type of safety are you thinking of?

Rust lacks type-programming features necessary for pragmatic type safety without performance concessions.

Can you give a concrete example? Rust has extremely good type safety.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com