https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/6b4xrc/walter_bright_believes_memory_safety_will_kill_c/dhkxhef/

On 5/18/17 10:00 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
> https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/6b4xrc/walter_bright_believes_memory_safety_will_kill_c/dhkxhef/ 

Oddly enough that link took me to a comment thread about Rust CFFI, with no comments by you in it. Perhaps you meant the link to not include the dhkxhef/ at the end?

On Thursday, 18 May 2017 at 17:00:11 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/6b4xrc/walter_bright_believes_memory_safety_will_kill_c/dhkxhef/

Heh, that explains all the views of that video, making it the most-viewed DConf talk, which I was confused about before:

http://forum.dlang.org/post/qanggnfamgjwdigjuxot@forum.dlang.org

On 5/18/2017 10:08 AM, David Gileadi wrote:
> On 5/18/17 10:00 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
>> https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/6b4xrc/walter_bright_believes_memory_safety_will_kill_c/dhkxhef/
>
>
> Oddly enough that link took me to a comment thread about Rust CFFI, with no
> comments by you in it. Perhaps you meant the link to not include the dhkxhef/ at
> the end?

Yes, sorry about that. Corrected link:

https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/6b4xrc/walter_bright_believes_memory_safety_will_kill_c/

On Thursday, 18 May 2017 at 17:25:24 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 5/18/2017 10:08 AM, David Gileadi wrote:
>> On 5/18/17 10:00 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/6b4xrc/walter_bright_believes_memory_safety_will_kill_c/dhkxhef/
>>
>>
>> Oddly enough that link took me to a comment thread about Rust CFFI, with no
>> comments by you in it. Perhaps you meant the link to not include the dhkxhef/ at
>> the end?
>
> Yes, sorry about that. Corrected link:
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/6b4xrc/walter_bright_believes_memory_safety_will_kill_c/

Looks like it's being discussed on r/rust too:

https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/6bpg90/systems_programming_panel_at_dconf2017_walter/

I think you got lucky that WannaCry hit soon after DConf, people are ready to talk about this now and your comments are spurring that discussion.

On 5/18/2017 10:42 AM, Joakim wrote:
> On Thursday, 18 May 2017 at 17:25:24 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 5/18/2017 10:08 AM, David Gileadi wrote:
>>> On 5/18/17 10:00 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/6b4xrc/walter_bright_believes_memory_safety_will_kill_c/dhkxhef/
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Oddly enough that link took me to a comment thread about Rust CFFI, with no
>>> comments by you in it. Perhaps you meant the link to not include the dhkxhef/ at
>>> the end?
>>
>> Yes, sorry about that. Corrected link:
>>
>> https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/6b4xrc/walter_bright_believes_memory_safety_will_kill_c/
>>
>
> Looks like it's being discussed on r/rust too:
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/6bpg90/systems_programming_panel_at_dconf2017_walter/
>
>
> I think you got lucky that WannaCry hit soon after DConf, people are ready to
> talk about this now and your comments are spurring that discussion.

Thanks for the link. I don't understand what they mean in saying I don't get Rust's vision.

On Thursday, 18 May 2017 at 19:33:25 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> Thanks for the link. I don't understand what they mean in saying I don't get Rust's vision.

A lot of Rust users seem to think they own the memory safe market. Language with GC = Bad. What they forget is that a good GC can be unnoticeable in code execution.

Take these silly benchmarks:

https://github.com/kostya/benchmarks

Despite Rust not being a GC language, you expect the Rust results to have a lower memory usage then D. Or D to have a larger execution time for the lower memory ( early GC cleanup cycles = lower memory usage but performance hits ).

The D Ldc vs Rust are the most relevant as its the same backend. But even with DMD or GCC those cpu/mem results can be better then Rust. Even Crystal pushes better results on the same backend.

But i was under the assumption that anything that is not Rust is simply bad? /s

On Friday, 19 May 2017 at 08:58:33 UTC, Wulfklaue wrote:
> On Thursday, 18 May 2017 at 19:33:25 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> Thanks for the link. I don't understand what they mean in saying I don't get Rust's vision.
>
> A lot of Rust users seem to think they own the memory safe market. Language with GC = Bad. What they forget is that a good GC can be unnoticeable in code execution.
>
> Take these silly benchmarks:
>
> https://github.com/kostya/benchmarks
>
> Despite Rust not being a GC language, you expect the Rust results to have a lower memory usage then D. Or D to have a larger execution time for the lower memory ( early GC cleanup cycles = lower memory usage but performance hits ).
>
> The D Ldc vs Rust are the most relevant as its the same backend. But even with DMD or GCC those cpu/mem results can be better then Rust. Even Crystal pushes better results on the same backend.
>
> But i was under the assumption that anything that is not Rust is simply bad? /s

I wonder, did you actually read the comments in linked thread in /r/rust? I don't see any that would support that.
The comments about D are actually fairly positive in that thread.

And @Walter, I believe they wrote that you dont *buy into* the vision of Rust, not that you don't get the vision of Rust. The vision of Rust and D are quite different, so this isn't unexpected.

They do however say that the actual knowledge about Rust in the D community seems to be rather small, compared to the amount of criticism against it. And TBQH I have to agree. To criticize, you should at least have a basic understanding of it.

I don't really understand why there is so much bashing of other languages on this forum (not just Rust, but also Java, C, C++, etc). For me personally, this leaves a bad taste and makes the D community look unfriendly.
There's room for both, Rust and D. Some just don't want a GC, for whatever valid or invalid reason. And some like it. Some like the terseness of D and others the explicitness of Rust. Some prefer the declarative nature of Rust, others the introspection of D.
As I see it, Rust and D might target similar problems, but as a language they are quite different.

If another language get's a good feature, the comments here are almost always negative. Why? Programming languages are tools, not religions (at least for most programmers). If the tools are getting better it's better for everyone. If other languages are including features of D, be happy about it, not angry.
And similarly, D should try to learn from other languages and maybe even include some of their features it it fits.

On Friday, 19 May 2017 at 13:35:07 UTC, Tobias Mueller wrote:
> On Friday, 19 May 2017 at 08:58:33 UTC, Wulfklaue wrote:
>> On Thursday, 18 May 2017 at 19:33:25 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> Thanks for the link. I don't understand what they mean in saying I don't get Rust's vision.
>>
>> A lot of Rust users seem to think they own the memory safe market. Language with GC = Bad. What they forget is that a good GC can be unnoticeable in code execution.
>>
>> Take these silly benchmarks:
>>
>> https://github.com/kostya/benchmarks
>>
>> Despite Rust not being a GC language, you expect the Rust results to have a lower memory usage then D. Or D to have a larger execution time for the lower memory ( early GC cleanup cycles = lower memory usage but performance hits ).
>>
>> The D Ldc vs Rust are the most relevant as its the same backend. But even with DMD or GCC those cpu/mem results can be better then Rust. Even Crystal pushes better results on the same backend.
>>
>> But i was under the assumption that anything that is not Rust is simply bad? /s
>
> I wonder, did you actually read the comments in linked thread in /r/rust? I don't see any that would support that.
> The comments about D are actually fairly positive in that thread.

I believe he is poking fun at "the typical Reddit Rustacean".

On 5/19/17 9:35 AM, Tobias Mueller wrote:

> They do however say that the actual knowledge about Rust in the D
> community seems to be rather small, compared to the amount of criticism
> against it. And TBQH I have to agree. To criticize, you should at least
> have a basic understanding of it.

The comments about Andrei saying Rust can't call into C or have C call back are quite harsh. Looking at Rust's ability to call C API, it seems they have a point -- it appears to be just like D in that you just declare an extern C function and can call it.

Disclaimer: have never used Rust.

-Steve