@pcwalton Couldn't you also call it "high level" and be correct?
Thinking about a crisp way to sum up #rustlang. "Low-level programming without performance compromises or segfaults", maybe?
-
-
-
@ssylvan It's easier than malloc and free, but you have to think about where you're allocating data and what the ownership is.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@pcwalton for me "low-level" and "performance" are redundant. I'd try to focus more on what "low-level" means. No segv's is certainly good. -
.
@brixen I'm trying to emphasize "no mandatory GC or runtime". Don't have to choose between perf and safety. - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
@pcwalton Control without footguns -
@jruderman "footgun" is a Mozilla-ism, I think :) - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
@pcwalton I think you need the word safe in there. That's a key distinguishing feature. -
@littlecalculist "Safe, concurrent, fast" applies to a bunch of other industry languages. "Low-level but safe" applies to only one. - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
@pcwalton Or with a little of sarcasm, "Low level programming, but with actual memory management and no segfaults" -
- 3 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.