Zig is a modern C,
Rust is a modern C++/OCaml
So if you enjoy C++, Rust is for you. If you enjoy C and wish it was more verbose and more modern, try Zig.
Rust is a modern C++/OCaml
So if you enjoy C++, Rust is for you. If you enjoy C and wish it was more verbose and more modern, try Zig.
One can argue Rust is what C++ wanted to be maybe. But C++ as it is now is anything but clean and clear.
It replaces C++ for me, so I would say it's "a C++"
Rust gives us memory safety by default and some awesome ML-ish type system features among other things, which are things we didn’t already have. Memory safety and almost totally automatic memory management with no runtime are big things too.
Go, meanwhile, is like a cleaner more modern Java with less baggage. You might also compare it to Python, but compiled.
Are there any other languages that provide this? Would genuinely consider the switch for some stuff if so.
I know, timelines not matching up, etc.
Zig offers no such thing. It would be a like-for-like replacement of an unsafe old language with an unsafe new one. May even be a better language, but that's not enough reason to overcome the burden.
https://github.com/ityonemo/clr
so yes, I understand that it's important. It doesn't need to be in the compiler though? I think it's likely the case that you also don't need to have annotations littering the language.
It’s like people do it just because Zig is very comparable to C. So the more complex Rust must be like something else that is also complex, right? And C++ is complex, so…
But that is a bit nonsensical. Rust isn’t very close to C++ at all.
For example, high performance servers (voltlane.net), programming languages (https://github.com/HF-Foundation, https://github.com/lionkor/mcl-rs, and one private one), webservers (beampaint.com) and lots of other domains.
Rust is close to C++ in that it is a systems language that allows a reasonable level of zero-cost abstractions.
Writing the compiler toolchains that Rust depends on, industry standards like CUDA, SYSCL, Metal, Unreal or the VFX Reference Platform.
Maybe cranelift will eventually surpass LLVM, but there isn't currently much reason to push for that.
C++ is good for some things regardless of its warts due to ecosystem, and Rust is better in some other ones, like being much safer by default.
Both will have to coexist in decades to come, but we have this culture that doesn't accept matches that end in a draw, it is all about being in the right tribe.
Have you considered that you perhaps do more damage to the conversation by having it with this hypothetical strike force instead of the people that are actually involved in the conversation? Whose feelings are you trying to protect? What hypocrisy are you trying to expose? Is the strike force with us in the room right now?
And I also assert that the speech that Rust is going to take over the C++, misses on that as long as Rust depends on LLVM for its existence.
Or ignoring that for the time being NVidia, Intel, AMD, XBox, PlayStation, Nintendo, CERN, Argonne National Laboratory and similar, hardly bother with Rust based software for what they do day to day.
They have employees on WG14, WG21, contribute to GCC/clang upstream, and so far have shown no interest in having Rust around on their SDKs or research papers.
Everybody agrees with that, though? Including the people writing rustc.
There's a space for a different thing that does codegen differently (e.g. Cranelift), but that's neither here nor there.
> And I also assert that the speech that Rust is going to take over the C++, misses on that as long as Rust depends on LLVM for its existence.
There's a huge difference between "Rust depends on LLVM because you couldn't write LLVM in Rust [so we still need C++]" and then "Rust depends on LLVM because LLVM is pretty good". The former is false, the latter is true. Rust is perfectly suited for writing LLVM's eventual replacement, but that's a massive undertaking with very little real value right now.
Rust is young and arguably incomplete for certain use cases, and it'll take a while to mature enough too meet all use cases of C++, but that will happen long before very large institutions are also able to migrate their very large C++ code bases and expertise. This is a multi-decade process.
That's like saying php is close to haskell because they both have garbage collection.
If you enjoy C and wish it was less verbose and more modern, try Go.
Maybe I'll jump to Zig as a side-gig (ha, it rhymes), but I still can't motivate myself to play with Rust. I'm happy with C++ on that regard.
Maybe gccrs will change that, IDK, yet.
GC is a showstopper for my day job (hard realtime industrial machine control/robotics), but would also be unwanted for other use cases where worst case latency is important, such as realtime audio/video processing, games (where you don't want stutter, remember Minecraft in Java?), servers where tail latency matters a lot, etc.
Which is a very niche use case to begin with, isn't it? It doesn't really contradict what the parent comment stated about Go feeling like modern C (with a boehm gc included if you will). We're using it this way and it feels just fine. I'd be happy to see parts of our C codebase rewritten in Go, but since that code is security sensitive and has already been through a number of security reviews there's little motivation to do so.
My specific use case is yes, but there are a ton of microcontrollers running realtime tasks all around us: brakes in cars, washing machine controllers, PID loops to regulate fans in your computer, ...
Embedded systems in general are far more common than "normal" computers, and many of them have varying levels of realtime requirements. Don't believe me? Every classical computer or phone will contain multiple microcontrollers, such as an SSD controller, a fan controller, wifi module, cellular baseband processor, ethernet NIC, etc. Depending on the exact specs of your device of course. Each SOC, CPU or GPU will contain multiple hidden helper cores that effectively run as embedded systems (Intel ME, AMD PSP, thermal management, and more). Add to that all the appliances, cars, toys, IOT things, smartcards, etc all around us.
No, I don't think it is niche. Fewer people may work on these, but they run in far more places.
Some embedded use cases would be fine with a GC (MicroPython is also a thing after all). Some want deterministic deallocation. Some want no dynamic allocator at all. From what I have seen, far more products are in the latter two categories. While many hobby projects fall into the first two categories. That is of course a broad generalization, but there is some truth to it.
Many products want to avoid allocation entirely either because of the realtime properties, or because they are cost sensitive and it is worth spending a little bit extra dev effort to be able to save an Euro or two and use a cheaper microcontroller where the allocator overhead won't fit (either the code in flash, or just the bookkeeping in RAM).
Here is the commercial product for which it was designed,
https://reversec.com/usb-armory
A presentation from 2024,
https://www.osfc.io/2024/talks/tamago-bare-metal-go-for-arm-...
You can also see it differently: If the language dictates a 4x increase in memory or CPU usage, you have set a much closer deadline before you need to upgrade the machine or rearchitect your code to become a distributed system by a factor 4 as well.
Previously, delivering a system (likely in C++) that consumed factor 4 fewer resources was an effort that cost developer time at a much higher factor, especially if you had uptime requirements. With Rust and similar low-overhead languages, the ratio changes drastically. It is much cheaper to deliver high-performance solutions that scale to the full capabilities of the hardware.
With Wails it’s also a low friction way to build desktop software (using the heretical web tech that people often reach for, even for this use case), though there are a few GUI frameworks as well.
Either way, self contained executables that are easy to make and during development give you a rich standard library and not too hard of a language to use go a long way!
- It was explicitly intended to "feel dynamically-typed"
- Tries to live by the zen of Python (more than Python itself!)
- Was built during the time it was fashionable to use Python for the kinds of systems it was designed for, with Google thinking at the time that they would benefit from moving their C++ systems to that model if they could avoid incurring the performance problems associated with Python. Guido Van Rossum was also employed at Google during this time. They were invested in that sort of direction.
- Often reads just like Python (when one hasn't gone deep down the rabbit hole of all the crazy Python features)
Rust is not object-oriented.
That makes your statement wrong.
Plenty of OOP architectures can be implemented 1:1 in Rust type system.
Plenty of OOP architecture can be implemented in C. That's an extremely flawed and fuzzy definition. But we've been through this before.
A much saner definition is looking at how languages evolved and how term is used. The way it's used is to describe an inheritance based language. Basically C++ and the descendants.
The primary common ground is that their functions have encapsulation, which is what separates it from functions without encapsulation (i.e. imperative programming). This already has a name: Functional programming.
The issue is that functional, immutable programming language proponents don't like to admit that immutability is not on the same plane as imperative/functional/object-oriented programming. Of course, imperative, functional, and object-oriented language can all be either mutable or immutable, but that seems to evade some.
> SmallTalk
Smalltalk is different. It doesn't use function calling. It uses message passing. This is what object-oriented was originally intended to reference — it not being functional or imperative. In other words, "object-oriented" was coined for Smalltalk, and Smalltalk alone, because of its unique approach — something that really only Objective-C and Ruby have since adopted in a similar way. If you go back and read the original "object-oriented" definition, you'll soon notice it is basically just a Smalltalk laundry list.
> how term is used.
Language evolves, certainly. It is fine for "object-oriented" to mean something else today. The only trouble is that it's not clear to many what to call what was originally known as "object-oriented", etc. That's how we end up in this "no its this", "no its that" nonsense. So, the only question is: What can we agree to call these things that seemly have no name?
You omitted Smalltalk. Most people would agree that SmallTalk is object-oriented.
But that kinda ruins the common ground thesis.
> Language evolves, certainly. It is fine for "object-oriented" to mean something else today.
pjmlp definition is very fuzzy. It judges object-orientedness based on a few criteria, like inheritance, encapsulation, polymorphism, etc. More checks, stronger OOP.
By that, even Haskell is somewhat OOP, and so is C, assembly, Rust, and any language.
---
What I prefer is looking at it as it's used. And how it's used for appears to be akin to using it as an everyday term fish or fruit.
No one would agree that a cucumber is a fruit. Or that humans are fish. Even though botanically and genetically they are.
Exactly. It isn't functional. It doesn't use functions. It uses message passing instead. That is exactly why the term "object-oriented" was originally coined for Smalltalk. It didn't fit within the use of "imperative" and "functional" that preceded it.
> But that kinda ruins the common ground thesis.
That is the thesis: That Smalltalk is neither imperative nor functional. That is why it was given its own category. Maybe you've already forgotten, but I will remind that it was Smalltalk's creator that invented the term "object-oriented" for Smalltalk. Smalltalk being considered something different is the only reason for why "object-oriented" exists in the lexicon.
Erlang is the language that challenges the common ground thesis: It has both functions with encapsulation and message passing with encapsulation. However, I think that is easily resolved by accepting that it is both functional and object-oriented. That is what Joe Armstrong himself settled on and I think we can too.
> What I prefer is looking at it as it's used.
And when you look you'll soon find out that there is no commonality here. Everyone has their own vastly different definition. Just look at how many different definitions we got in this thread alone.
> No one would agree that a cucumber is a fruit.
Actually, absent of context defining whether you are referring to culinary or botanical, many actually do think of a cucumber as a fruit. The whole "did you know a tomato is actually a fruit?" is something that made the big leagues in the popular culture. However, your general point is sound: The definitions used are consistent across most people. That is not the case for object-oriented, though. Again, everyone, their brother, and pjmlp have their own thoughts and ideas about what it means. Looking at use isn't going to settle on a useful definition.
Realistically, if you want to effectively use "object-oriented" in your communication, you are going to have to explicitly define it each time.
Sure but your definition doesn't cover it. If language for which the term was coined, it's a bit meaningless, ain't it.
Problem with making encapsulation and polymorphism essential to OOP definition, is that it then starts garbling up functional languages like Haskell and imperative like C.
I can see them being necessary but not enough to classify something as OOP.
> And when you look you'll soon find out that there is no commonality here.
Perhaps, but broadly speaking people agree that C++ and Java are OOP, but for example C isn't.
Same way when people say and give me a fruit (as in fruits and vegetables), you'd be looked oddly if you gave a cucumber, rather than an apple.
Same way can be thought of OOP. The common definition is basically covers Message-passing-languages, and inheritance/prototype based languages.
Veg = { Cucumber, … }
Fruit As In = Fruit − Veg
How does it not cover it?
> Problem with making encapsulation and polymorphism essential to OOP definition, is that it then starts garbling up functional languages like Haskell and imperative like C.
Polymorphism? That was never mentioned. Let me reiterate the definitions:
- Imperative: Plain functions (C, Fortran, Pascal).
- Functional: Functions with encapsulation (C++, Java, Haskell, Erlang).
- Object-oriented: Message passing (Smalltalk, Objective-C, Ruby, Erlang).
Let me also reiterate that there are other axis of concerns. Imperative, functional, and object-oriented are not trying to categorize every last feature a programming language might have. Mutable/immutable, or polymorphic/monomorphic, etc. are others concern and can be independently labeled as such.
> Perhaps, but broadly speaking people agree that C++ and Java are OOP
Many do, but just as many hold on to the original definition. Try as you might, you're not going to find a common definition here, I'm afraid. If you want to use the term effectively, you're going to have to explicitly define it each time.
Sigh. Look at what started this whole discussion.
> pjmlp: Plenty of OOP architectures can be implemented 1:1 in Rust type system.
I'm fine with object-oriented meaning message passing.
I'm fine with object-oriented being used to describe inheritance based langs Java/C#/C++.
But where that fails miserably is when you try implementing inheritance based stuff like DOM in Rust.
You can't have your cake (all capabilities of OOP) and also eat it too (also most of them missing).
Rust was never about inheritance hierarchies or message passing.
It's just structs with privacy modifiers. And functions that are applied to them.
If you are pointing out that there is no consistent definition for OOP, I agree. I've said so multiple times. Yes, the proof is in the pudding, as they say.
It is not clear where you think that might otherwise fit into our discussion? I, to the best of my ability, spelled out the historical definitions that we are talking about so that we had a shared understanding. What someone else may have defined the same words as is irrelevant.
I think we can agree that these dividing lines aren't even useful, but the history behind them is understandable. In the beginning there was imperative programming, named to differentiate from unstructured programming. Then came encapsulation, which didn't fit under imperative, so they named it functional to separate it from imperative. But then came Smalltalk, and it recognized that it doesn't fit under imperative or functional, so it gave itself the name "object-oriented".
If we could go back in time we'd realize that none of these names bring any significance [hence why there is no consistent definition] and throw them away. But we cannot go back in time. We could recognize today that they are just a historical curiosity and throw them away now, but it seems there is too much emotional attachment to them at this point.
So, if you want to use them to satisfy your emotional desires, you can! But you need to also explicitly define them each time so that the reader/listener understands what you mean by it. Failure to do so means they will pick their own pet definition, and then you will talk past each other. There is no commonality found around these terms because, again, any definition you choose (pjmlp's, mine, yours, anyone's) none of them convey any truly useful information, so any definition offered is never retained by anyone else.
> It's pjmlp's insistence that Rust is object-oriented.
It is, for some definition of object-oriented. But this perfectly highlights how there isn't useful information to be found in the use of the term. Even if we all agreed on what object-oriented means, what would you learn from it? Nothing, is what. It was a pointless statement and we can accept it as such.
Sure, for some definition of red, green is red. E.g., colorblind people. I'm interested in more broadly accepted jargon.
The problem is, Rust isn't really object-oriented either. I'm interested in a mostly consistent and hopefully majority definition.
It's not message-passing sense (can't do cool fancy things* a la Ruby or Smalltalk); nor is it inheritance-based (can't do inheritance-based nor prototype-based OOP patterns).
There is one more mathematical definition of whether two features are equal, but it involves languages, local macros, and Turing machines. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43XaZEn2aLc
* There was some kind of message recorder and playback in Ruby/Smalltalk, that I can't find. Basically send methods to objects and record them, then playback them at later date. Will update if I find it.
May I suggest "programming language"? I think you will find that most everyone agrees that Rust is a programming language.
In context, it's functional, but I think you rejecting that historical definition means that you agree with me that the attempt at categorization here doesn't provide any useful information. So, the question here is: What specific information is it that you think is failing to be effectively communicated?
If I take a walk down the street and tell the first guy I meet, "Hey, Rust is a programming language", what information did he miss out on that you find critical?
When we establish that, we might find out there is already a widely recognized term. You won't find it in "object-oriented", however. It has never been used in a context where the information was useful. Even the original message passing definition was never useful as you always had to explain what message passing is at the same time anyway, negating the value of a single word to use as a shorthand.
Words are not given to us naturally by the universe. They are a human invention. Consistent definitions for words only become accepted consistently when those humans find utility in adopting something consistent. "If you build it, they will come" only works in movies.
Expressivity. As the video I linked before shows, there is a quantifiable and objective difference between a language that has exceptions and one that doesn't. Or lambda's or async.
What terms like "message passing" and "inheritance-based" capture is unique ability of each language to do something novel* other languages can't. Rust as of now lacks such capabilities, although it can probably simulate them to some extent.
*For message passing, it's the method record and replayer. For inheritance-based it can be something like easy DOM manipulation.
Then you might say that Rust is an expressive programming language. But then I'm going to ask: What does expressivity mean?
Ruby is always hailed for its expressivity. Is it also an expressive programming language despite having very little in common with Rust technically?
It seems to me you're going back down the road Kay did thinking that "object-oriented" could become the way to describe his actor based, message passing model. It never caught on because what that means isn't well understood and had to be explained in more detail, so a single word didn't add any value, and thus nobody ever took note of it.
> there is a quantifiable and objective difference between a language that has exceptions and one that doesn't.
Well, I suggest we have a way to say that: {X} {has|does not have} exceptions. The terminology there already exists and is commonplace, as far as I see. If you need to talk about multiple features, then make it a list: {X} has exceptions, lambdas, and inheritance. Laundry list of features are easy to describe. It is when one wants to speak more conceptually that it is harder to find something of actual value as it is usually the concept that you want to explain.
And maybe that's all you really need to get the information conveyed here? "Rust is a programming language" → "Rust is a programming language that has x, y, and z."
That's not what I mean. Expressivity allows you to objectively test if two languages are different. The functional/objective/imperative are trying to capture some expressive features.
Using expressivity, you can finally put a Turing machine to that feeling and test it.
> The terminology there already exists and is commonplace, as far as I see.
Missing the point. Message oriented language captures the expressivity of having the ability to send and receive arbitrary methods. This is what I mean.
If OOP or MOP is just a marketing term, then it carries no value.
Which allowed me to port 1:1 the Raytracing Weekend tutorial from the original OOP design in C++ to Rust.
Also the OOP model used by COM and WinRT ABIs, that Microsoft makes heavy use of in their Rust integration across various Windows and Office components.
And yes, we all know the rest of the story about how the C++ guys were butthurt by that callout and have been on a mission to make up their own pet definition that allows C++ to become "object-oriented" ever since. I mean, who wouldn't want to latch onto a term that was about the unique features of a failed programming language that never went anywhere?
But, until then, no. It is still something we regularly talk about. It needs a name. And lucky for us it already has one — and has had one for 40 years.