Rust 1.0 Released 149
TopSpin writes: Rust 1.0 has arrived, and release parties in Paris, LA and San Francisco are taking place today. From the Rust Programming Language blog: "The current Rust language is the result of a lot of iteration and experimentation. The process has worked out well for us: Rust today is both simpler and more powerful than we originally thought would be possible. But all that experimentation also made it difficult to maintain projects written in Rust, since the language and standard library were constantly changing. The 1.0 release marks the end of that churn. This release is the official beginning of our commitment to stability, and as such it offers a firm foundation for building applications and libraries. From this point forward, breaking changes are largely out of scope (some minor caveats apply, such as compiler bugs)." You can read about specific changes in the changelog.
Re:Running out of words? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm waiting for the job postings on Dice that have a requirement of at least 5 years of Rust programming experience in the next couple of months.
Then having those same companies bitch about how they can't find any qualified people and they need more H1-bs.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm waiting for the job postings on Dice that have a requirement of at least 5 years of Rust programming experience in the next couple of months.
Not bad for the people who have been working on Rust internally at Mozilla since 2009. They're about to hit 6 years of experience!
Re: (Score:2)
Yah, but would they really want a low paying entry level Rust job that requires 5 years Rust experience and a Rust Certificate?
Re: (Score:2)
Touche!
Senior Software Engineer: Minimum 5 years of experience in Rust 2.0!
Re:Running out of words? (Score:5, Insightful)
And THEN some recruiter saying he has people in Bangalore that do have 5 years experience in Rust.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Running out of words? (Score:5, Funny)
Has there ever been a new language that wasn't described as "both simpler and more powerful".
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
BF.
Re: (Score:2)
Usually Simpler or More Powerful.
Re: (Score:2)
Has there ever been a new language that wasn't described as "both simpler and more powerful".
I'm not sure it's simpler... But the type system offers some really interesting ownership models. :)
One can than argue that it being harder to shoot yourself in the foot makes it simpler
Re: (Score:2)
One can than argue that it being harder to shoot yourself in the foot makes it simpler :)
Not really. Take guns for example. It's quite simple to blast one's foot off with any gun. It's actually quite a bit more complex to be able to make a gun such that shooting one's foot off is hard.
Re: (Score:2)
It's easy to make a gun that won't shoot your own foot off. Of course, it won't be able to shoot anything else either.
Re: (Score:2)
A 7 foot long rifle would be able to shoot lots of things other than your own foot. But you'd probably need to make the shot prone, sniper style.
Re: (Score:2)
One can argue it's simpler because you have fewer body parts to watch out for
In rust sense, one can argue it's simpler to code because there are entire classes of bugs that can be avoided with static typing. So you don't have to worry about that kind of bugs anymore.
Similarly one can argue that haskell is simple because if it compiles, then it'll very often do the right thing
Re: (Score:2)
Introducing Binary , a language so simple that the whole manual is a single line: 0 means off, 1 means on
Share and Enjoy!
Re: (Score:2)
Woah, I was doing this code review and I think I saw a 2.
Re: Running out of words? (Score:2)
Yes [wikipedia.org]
Re: Running out of words? (Score:2, Funny)
Bjarne, is that you?
Re: (Score:2)
Wow... Three parties of one... Hope they at least have video links between them...
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious. Did C or C++ have a release party? Or is that a value added feature of Rust?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, then at least it did bring something to the table besides hype.
Re: (Score:2)
We had a C++11 party. It was mostly themed, "About damn time!" Our C++14 party we held up a banner, "Here's to a 10'00'0'00 lines of code that will abuse the new number concept." Our C++17 party will be a mostly confusing and unintelligible cluster fuck of multiple party ideas rolled into one.
Also, before anyone get's angry, I'm just being funny.
Any reasons for checking it out? (Score:2, Interesting)
So why should I use Rust instead of the languages I'm currently using (Ada and Racket)?
Re: (Score:3)
Because it's shiny? Oh, wait, that can't be it.
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks for clarifying. I'm always worried about how my choice of programming language defines me as a person.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you can. It's economical too since all jeans are skinny jeans to a fat hipster. The point of skinny jeans is not to be comfortable but to make the onlooker uncomfortable, and only a fat hipster can pull that off so perfectly.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah can't forget the chin-strap beard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I apologize. I don't keep up on the latest lingo for douche beards.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm worried by what I see. (Score:4, Insightful)
What's the relevance of this exactly? I'm not sure how Microsoft having bugs in their software somehow cancels out the ton of bugs in the Rust compiler, it's standard library and the software project that is its biggest consumer. Does the Rust bugs somehow cease to exist because bugs exist in Microsoft software? Do their severity somehow change because Microsoft has bugs in its software? Come back when you have an actual argument not "BUT MICRO$OFT!!!"
Re: (Score:2)
My post was flamebait? In what way exactly? Or did someone just get butthurt that I didn't go "Yeah, you're right. Hurr hurr micro$oft sucks!! Hurr hurr!"
Re:I'm worried by what I see. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You must be responding to the wrong person. My response was to the ridiculous "But Microsoft!!" post. The person who was pointing out all the issues was the GP of my post.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Because there are a ton of bugs. Trying to claim there is only 19 bugs out of 100s of issues is complete silliness.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh and to add, it's quite interesting that you ignored the "ICE" label that reports over 200 issues reporting internal compiler errors.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not all bugs will be labelled correctly,
Don't worry. Somebody is keeping track of that on 3 by 5 index cards in a shoe-box.
I thought Rust the game (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I am working on Shiny 0.9.0 right now (Score:5, Funny)
Get Started Coding Today!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
But will it still work with my TETANUS debugger? (Test Environment To Analyze Negative Usage Symptoms)
Re: (Score:1)
So much wasted potential. (Score:1, Interesting)
Rust would have been useful 5 years ago. But now there is no reason to use it. Go, C++14, Ada 2012, OCaml, D, Scala, and even C# (now that core .NET code has been opened sourced and ported to non-Windows systems) offer everything Rust does, plus more. Somebody will probably claim that Rust "isn't competing with those languages", but in reality it is, and it's way behind them. Rust could have been a game changer, but like Perl 6 its developers just couldn't get a stable major release out on a reasonable sche
Being rusty is no excuse... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Rust has been worked on internally at Mozilla since 2009, was publicly announced in 2010 and had it's earliest pre-release alphas in 2012. It's hardly only been out for 6 months.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Great, for "them". What exactly is the relevance?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, people have been able to use Rust as an alpha-quality language for pet projects for going on 3 years now. Just because you only heard of it today doesn't mean the rest of us did.
Re: (Score:2)
To add, unlike Swift Rust has been publicly being developed on Github since 2010. So it doesn't matter what anyone "says" when there is a Public git record [github.com] dating back to their 2010 public announcement about the language. Unless you think Github and the Rust developers faked their git history.
Rust made a mistake in going C++-syntax (Score:4, Interesting)
They could have made the same simple concepts without going C++ style. This is obviously just aesthetics, but I don't think the language looks nice compared to lots of newer languages (Swift, Ruby, Kotlin, and even D).
The :: scope operator is ugly and redundant.
This match syntax is just ugly and hard to type:
match header[0] {
1 => Ok(Version::Version1),
2 => Ok(Version::Version2),
_ => Err(ParseError::InvalidVersion)
}
The following is ugly and is not obvious:
use std::sync::{Arc, Mutex};
use std::thread;
use std::sync::mpsc;
fn main() {
let data = Arc::new(Mutex::new(0u32));
let (tx, rx) = mpsc::channel();
for _ in 0..10 {
let (data, tx) = (data.clone(), tx.clone());
thread::spawn(move || {
let mut data = data.lock().unwrap();
*data += 1;
tx.send(());
});
}
for _ in 0..10 {
rx.recv();
}
}
A simple printf function has to be a macro, because the techniques it uses are unsafe which is a main feature of the language.
OK a lot of these gripes are trivial; I guess I'm getting at the fact that they went an academic route about how to deal with pointers and memory allocation safely, and then built everything around that. It was so academic and engineering-like and they didn't think or try very hard about the design and aesthetics.
Re: (Score:1)
$ rustc --version
This clearly looks like a rusted version of the C programming language. Move along, nothing to see.
Re: (Score:2)
They could have made the same simple concepts without going C++ style. This is obviously just aesthetics, but I don't think the language looks nice compared to lots of newer languages (Swift, Ruby, Kotlin, and even D).
The :: scope operator is ugly and redundant.
This match syntax is just ugly and hard to type:
Honestly, if you're going to throw syntax open to a full re-evaluation, I'd much prefer something like perl6. It may seem convoluted, but at least it's been designed by a linguist and has an internal coherence. It also provides enough of a hint as to what the programmer is intending that a (future) perl6 compiler should be able to optimize the heck out of it.
Re: (Score:2)
But on simple examples I like that macros are identified with a bang, like this : println! :: operator I simply don't know what the fuck it means. dunno if it's ugly or not, but means that I would have to learn what it means, and why it's not just a ".".
It's daunting that in a language you might encounter some name, but don't know if it's a real function, or a macro, or something that was overloaded.
As for the
Re: (Score:3)
> A simple printf function has to be a macro
I don't see anything wrong with that. Actually, it sounds quite sensible: it gets rid of some ugly variable arguments handling code, but still keeps the source readable. For the rest: Rust is an interesting idea, but doesn't look ideal. Apparently, it does not interface well with C++, only C, but mixing with C++ could be a good start. Rewrite some buggy code in Rust where it makes sense while keeping the rest in C++.
Re: (Score:2)
What I mean with that is that the language was designed with certain safety mechanisms involved. However, in order to do something as simple (maybe simple isn't the right word, but common) as the printf function, you have to break the standard safety mechanisms. Hence the printf function is a macro, and underneath the hood there is a whole lot of ugliness.
Now, taking a step back further, I think that it's good that ugliness is hidden behind the scenes. My point is that, if one has to get ugly to do the thin
Re: (Score:2)
I see. Printf is a bit of a weird function: perhaps they need a better macro syntax. Expanding at compile time is safe, so a good language for that might overcome (part of) these problems.
> it will actually become common and necessary to "do ugly things" in order to get stuff done in real-world applications.
Quite likely. But if that can be kept to a minimum, possibly shielded behind macros and the likes, and the rest of the code can achieve good performance, then we might have won something.
Re: Rust made a mistake in going C++-syntax (Score:4, Insightful)
C++ provides no safety guarantees: there's no subset of C++ that can be statically checked to be safe, that's rich enough for C++ programmers to use in practice. As soon as you use pointers or references you have the possibility of the underlying object dying and leaving a dangling reference.
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody writing new C++ code writes it like it was written decades ago.
Nobody? We vintage programmers can not only make our C++ look like it was written decades ago, we can even make it look like FORTRAN!
You kids goto off my lawn!
Re: (Score:2)
The _ makes good sense as it's the default/fallback case in pattern matching, meaning "anything else and I don't care about the value". _ is used for that in e.g. Haskell, Ocaml and F#. So it's neat that it's used to get rid of an useless i variable.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Make better language, not better coders. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The improvement over C/C++ is that you won't trigger UB by accident while using the safe subset of the language, and the vast majority of the time you will be able to do what you want in that subset.
I can do the same thing in C++ using a safe subset of it as well without needing to learn a new language and waste man years porting software. No one doing modern C++ should be dealing with raw pointers outside of exceptional cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Never claimed smart pointers solve all problems because that would be ridiculous. If you have cases that a smart pointer doesn't solve then clearly you would need to use the correct solution. But for the vast majority of cases that people use raw pointers for, they can be substituted with something safer and remove a whole host of potential bugs from their code.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no useful subset of C++ that is a) statically checkable and b) guarantees absence of dangling pointers and null dereferences.
Re: (Score:2)
Same here. And really, most pointer vulnerabilities go away when you code carefully, and finding the rest with things like Valgrind works well if you actually have thought about testing when you designed your code. And in really critical places, you can always do check-before-use and fail gracefully instead of insecure. Of course, all these things require that you know what you do. Things like Rust are an insult to those of us that do.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, they have yet to even prove the fact that Rust is good at what they claim it's made for. C and C++ didn't win over programmers through hype. They won over programmers by being proven through real-world applications. It's easy to talk up a language, it's much harder to back that talk up with real-world results.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. And I have the impression that Rust is not nearly that good, and hence an intense marketing campaign is done.
Re: (Score:2)
"Assemblers are an insult to those of us that know what we're doing."
"High level languages like Fortran and C are an insult to those of us that know what we're doing."
"High level scripting languages like Bash are an insult to those of us that know what we're doing."
"High level languages Java are an insult to those of us that know what we're doing."
Re: (Score:2)
Your point? That other people say things that _sound_ like what I said does not invalidate my point in the least.
Re: (Score:2)
The more the compiler can protect me from past-me, the better. And certainly from my coworkers.
Look, I don't get how Rust deals with circular references at all (screw you, leak, I think). But the way to train better coders is to get them up on standards. Why you wouldn't want those standards enforced by the compiler I have no idea.
I read the Rust documentation (what 1/2 or 1/4 or something of it there was). Okay ideas, but not terribly interesting. But if I could snap my fingers and code that didn't me
Re: (Score:2)
Why you wouldn't want those standards enforced by the compiler I have no idea.
This reeks of strawman. GP never said or implied any such thing.
Re: (Score:2)
It certainly is implied that he is against creating languages that enforce certain standards. Note, almost all standards include "Thou shall not"'s for some language features. You practically have to in C++. I mean, I don't know any (modern) standard that would let you pass and cast tons of void*'s around as the standard case.
Re: (Score:2)
Waiting for adoption is just an excuse to not be an adopter yourself.
No, it's waiting for Mozilla to actually prove the language is viable.
People keep saying X years of experience (Score:2)
But when I see years of experience in a job posting it usually is like this:
X years of experience in backend/functional programming/frontend/relational databases like (java/ruby/C#)/(clojure,erlang,scala)/(javascript,html,css)/(oracle,sql server,mysql). Bonus points if you have experience with Y technology.
Which is sensible, even though rust might be only a couple of years old when you want a senior dev you want one that has been dealing with these kinds of problems for many years, even if most of those yea
Commitment to stability (Score:2)
So, is that like a Python or D commitment to stability, or a C/C++ level commitment to stability? Exactly how committed are they to preserving to preserving backwards compatibility through hell and high water? Because that's why people trust C/C++ - they know that the language committees are not going to suddenly "fix" the language by making billions of lines of code obsolete, simply because it was written fifteen years ago before a bunch of new shiny features have been added.
I think widespread adoption i
Re:Commitment to stability (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Since this is compiled code, the predictions I've heard of "it will perform about as well as C++ if you're using it with the same level of protection as Rust gives" makes sense to me. The implication is that yes, it's going to be a bit slower in the general use case, but if you're writing highly threaded or parallel C/C++ code, then you'd have to manually implement that level of protection anyhow in those languages.
We'll have to see if that actually pans out in practice or not. I remain slightly skeptical
Re: (Score:2)
In addition, references in Rust are guaranteed to be non-null.
As they are in C++. They are also compile-time checked to make sure they have been initialized. It's one of the whole reasons that references exist in C++ and should be used in place of pointers whenever possible.
Re: (Score:2)
int* p = nullptr; // Hello, null reference
int& p2 = *p;
Re: (Score:2)
Not that hard in Rust either:
let badref: &u32 = unsafe { std::mem::transmute(0 as *const u32)};
But doing this trick is UB in both C++ and Rust, so it's not really fair to hold it against either language. Having said that, one advantage of Rust would be that it is impossible to create such a bad reference without using an unsafe block, while in C++ it seems much easier to do so by mistake.
Re: (Score:1)
Not disagreeing with you, but a nullptr-to-reference cast would at least crash immediately (unless you have a compiler that takes "undefined behavior" too literally). Here's another contrived example:
const char *c = std::string("oops").c_str();
I'm not a c++ expert but I'm pretty sure 'c' now points to freed memory. The real problem is that the code will usually work until a customer runs it. And solutions like valgrind aren't always optimal (consider code coverage and execution speed) or even necessarily
Re: (Score:3)
Your last sentence sums it up nicely. If you stick to the safe subset of Rust (which is almost the entire language, and enough to write almost all of a high-performance Web browser in, for example) then you can't trigger undefined behaviors, and references that claim to be non-null are guaranteed to really not be null. Escaping from that subset requires you to write the "unsafe" keyword.
OTOH C++ has nothing like that. It's very very easy in practice for C++ code to accidentally trigger undefined behaviors t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As they are in C++.
No they ain't. Null references are UB, not impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
C and C++ have evolved a ton over the years, and vendor-specific extensions are common (though less so now than in the beginning).
Rust doesn't need to unseat C/C++, nor should that be its goal (and I don't think it is). It is simply a tool that you can choose to use or choose not to use. Once the remaining bugs are fleshed out, there's a good chance it will be valuable for projects requiring exceptional security.
Note that it also interoperates fairly easily with C/C++, so you can implement some parts of a p
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to break it to you but Rust has a runtime. No different than pretty much every language. You're not one of those people that doesn't realize that C or C++ also have runtimes, right? You do know what the "crt" in msvcrt means, right?
I meant to type "runtime interpreter". No need to be so snarky.
Re: (Score:3)
You can build Rust programs and libraries that don't link to the standard library (as you can in C) This is very useful. Rust is pretty much the only language that lets you write complex safe code and still not link to any standard library (since its memory-safe competitors all require GC).
WTF (Score:3, Insightful)
How to tell if you're out hipster-ing your trendy, Brogrammer self:
Your next-big-thing programming language is having simultaneous release parties Paris, LA and San Francisco.
Interesting, but... (Score:2)
It looks interesting, but they need to work on their documentation. I wasn't able to find anything about reading and writing random access files. It had many things that appear easy to do in Rust which are difficult in various different languages, but I couldn't find a way in which it was notably better overall in any area.
FWIW I was mainly comparing it against D and Python, with a few considerations of Ruby. I should have compared it against Ada, but it's been too long since I actually used it. I can't
Re: (Score:2)
According to South Park, Canadian cars feature wheels that are 33% more advanced.
Re: (Score:2)
It has a command line UI. If you mean GUI, I'm not sure why you would need a reference implementation of a GUI for a programming language.
Re: (Score:2)
If we can get Blackboard, Inc. [wikipedia.org] to adopt it, we could have Rusty Rails on a Blackboard. We'd be just one letter away from perfection.