it feels like there’s a smaller language hiding in Rust that’s half as powerful at the edges but 10-50x easier to read, write, and maintain
13
18
123
Conversation
Comparing a language using garbage collection to one tackling the hard problem of providing memory safety without it doesn't make much sense. Rust is a low-level systems programming language while Go is in a different niche. If you don't need a low-level language, don't use Rust.
2
1
5
By the way, Go isn't memory safe either, since it has data races (like Java, unlike Rust) and doesn't prevent them from causing memory corruption (unlike Java) due to not designing it with statically verified safety for this or paying the performance cost of doing it dynamically.
1
4
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
this is definitely not my experience, the idioms and conventions make segvs rare to nonexistant
data races however
1
1
Null pointer dereferences aren't at all uncommon in Go. Other languages with this legacy issue like this C# at least offer better ways to avoid this. It's definitely not as awful as the data races inherent to how the language is designed, incl. maps / slices as reference types.
1
There's a lot to unpack about it and I don't think it's particularly relevant to the thread. It's not a language competing in the same space as Rust. It's not a low-level systems programming language with memory safety without GC. It's far closer to Java 1.0 without inheritance.