Slashdot Mirror
Rust 1.0 Released
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.
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.
And THEN some recruiter saying he has people in Bangalore that do have 5 years experience in Rust.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Job postings for Rust on Dice will require five years of experience for a programming language that came out six months ago.
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!!!"
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.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
You can do whatever you want with pointers (although the things that are UB in C will tend to be UB in Rust also), you just need to do so in an unsafe{ .. } block. 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.
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.
The issue tracker in Rust is used not only for bugs in the compiler, but also for tracking the standard library, new features, enhancements, some infrastructure, documentation, lints, etc. Assuming that 1900 open issues means there are 1900 bugs is ridiculous. If you look at the labels used on the issues tracker, you'll find that the label I-crash has 19 open issues. Of course not all bugs will be labelled correctly, so no doubt there will be more defects, but hardly the number that the 'worried' anon suggests. Also note that the language has changed significantly over the years, until it reached the current design. To look at some of the older bugs and conclude that the current version of the language can't be very good is silly because the rust of two or three years ago might as well have been a completely different language. As for servo, looking again at the label I-crash, I see (at this time) 39 open issues, which sounds much more reasonable than 800.
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.