Among other things, it is designed for very fast compilation. The guy behind it, Jonathan Blow, very seriously said he aims to hit a 1 million lines of code per second target. And in that time it does much more to help you than any C++ compiler does.
-
I will watch it, but bear in mind that many more things make it slow to compile (among other things, memory safety intersected with aiming to be as fast as good C++). It's not that it's not a priority.
Compilation speed is *clearly* not a high priority with Rust. Priorities are balanced against other priorities, and other ones came out way on top.
-
-
Well that's okay. Correctness and generated code performance are higher priorities.
-
From what I have been told, correctness is not the priority -- "memory safety" is, even in the many cases where memory safety does not lead to correctness.
-
I think that correctness is definitely a priority. Have you seen Ralf Jung's working group research of the `unsafe` uses within the stdlib and the compiler? Unless we're talking about a different form of correctness. I'm mostly talking about avoiding UB and vulnerabilities.
-
Then I think you are using the word "correctness" too loosely and charitably (as I think the entire Rust community does). Avoiding UB and vulnerabilities is good, but correctness means the program doesn't have bugs.
-
Ah yes, you're using a stricter form of correctness. Let's picture the space of bugs that will probably appear in a program. To me (loose correctness), ensuring correctness is proving that there's a region in that space that you'll never visit. Perfect correctness (yours) is (1/2
-
great, but afaik is only provable using very much cutting edge technology like Agda, Coq or Idris. Without at least fully dependent types you aren't able to prove that your program has absolutely no bugs. Maybe in 20 years or so that tech will be ergonomic enough for daily use :)
-
I am not talking about absolutely no bugs. I am just saying, an approach that is about general correctness, would look very different from an approach that is about memory safety + resource ownership.
-
It's fine, I think it's good that Rust is researching how to do a good job with memory safety + resource ownership without being a managed language. I just wish they would be clearer about what they are doing, and over-promise less.
- 15 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.