Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Friday May 15 2015, @10:30PM   Printer-friendly
from the already-rusty dept.

After many years of waiting, version 1.0 of the Rust programming language has finally been released. The Rust home page describes Rust as "a systems programming language that runs blazingly fast, prevents nearly all segfaults, and guarantees thread safety."

Thanks to the hard work of noted Rust core team members Yehuda Katz and Steve Klabnik, Rust is now poised to become a serious competitor to established systems programming languages like C and C++.

The announcement has brought much jubilation to the followers of Rust, who have been eagerly awaiting this milestone release for so long. With only 1,940 open issues and over 11,500 issues already closed, Rust is finally ready for users to build fantastically reliable software systems using it.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2015, @10:40PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2015, @10:40PM (#183523)

    I thought that Rust was supposed to make buggy code hard to write. So why have the Rust compiler and the Rust stdlib suffered from so many bugs?

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   0  
       Troll=1, Insightful=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   0  
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2015, @11:22PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2015, @11:22PM (#183556)

    This is a good question. When I last submitted an LLVM bug, the bug number was in the 21000s. LLVM is a lot more complex than Rust is, but it's written in C++ instead of Rust. Why does a complex compiler system (supporting multiple programming languages!) written in C++ only have say 25000 bugs, but a Rust (and only Rust!) compiler written in Rust has around half that number? Theoretically the Rust number should be a whole lot lower, or the C++ bug count should be a whole lot higher. But the empirical evidence is showing the opposite to be true! The big system written in the "unsafe" language has fewer bugs than the much smaller system written in the "safer" language!

  • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday May 16 2015, @09:51AM

    by maxwell demon (1608) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 16 2015, @09:51AM (#183711) Journal

    I thought that Rust was supposed to make buggy code hard to write. So why have the Rust compiler and the Rust stdlib suffered from so many bugs?

    It just means that the compiler and standard library was hard to write.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 16 2015, @01:16PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 16 2015, @01:16PM (#183747)

      But the compiler and standard library are mostly written in Rust, so the same promises should apply equally well to them. They're Rust code like any other.

      • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday May 16 2015, @02:14PM

        by maxwell demon (1608) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 16 2015, @02:14PM (#183764) Journal

        Logic 101: If Rust makes buggy code hard to write, and the compiler and library are buggy code written in Rust, then what follows?

        Or in short: Whoosh!

        --
        The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.