However Rust can produce vastly more efficient code when it is manipulating strings because it is all slice based. In C++ if I make a substring, I allocate a new piece of memory to copy the substring into whereas Rust can return a slice to the existing string.
Yeah, as I said, the claim that C/C++ are the most efficient high level languages is just a myth. Rust also supports low level code where you control everything, which means there are no optimization limitations. As for faster string processing, in C++ there is std::string_view which just holds 2 pointers to the start and the end of char buffer.
I don't understand the need for some to wave away all the problems with them.
I would much prefer that the compiler tells me about array overflows etc, or at least give me a way to write a type that gives me automatic checking of bounds.
It's called code static checking, but unfortunately it cannot be done at compile time for more complicated algorithms, especially with external parameters. At least partially, it can be done dynamically for debug/profile binaries, but all the checks are removed from the actual released product, and the undiscovered errors can be cumbersome to debug in the future. Also in *most* cases the runtime checked and C/C++ binaries have similar performance, primarily because even the safe languages aggressively optimize the code by eliminating redundant checks (for example, array iteration, it's not necessary to perform bound checks for every index/iterator access, it can be done once before the iteration) and also because in C/C++ the majority of such runtime checks are still performed manually or are done in standard template libraries. Just look at Rust vs C++ benchmarks, in some cases Rust generated faster code and it could be optimized even further. Also for performance critical parts (where the compiler can't eliminate the unneeded checks, or you are writing a driver) Rust lets you write unsafe blocks where no dynamic checks are performed and you can also work with raw pointers, pretty much like in C/C++. There is even an OS kernel written in Rust. The fundamental difference is that Rust is safe by default, and only in few performance critical parts you need to tell the compiler that you know 100% what you are doing. C++ is mostly C by default and C is unsafe by default.
On my Lenovo G570 the latest chrome also has very high CPU usage on slither.io game and the game turns into a slideshow in places with many snakes. Firefox 61 doesn't suffer from the this problem, despite the fact that its slower almost in any regard. But not this time.
Android Minecraft that can already be ran on Chromebooks with that whole Android on Chromebook
Yeah, but it isn't designed for PCs or laptops and cannot be controlled by keyboard arrow keys (or WASD), you have to click the arrow buttons with the mouse, it really sucks. Besides that, some might want to pirate the full PC version.
Maybe Chrome OS but not Linux. Chrome OS (also Android) kernel is really irrelevant, especially considering Google's plans of ditching it in favor of Fuchsia / Zircon.
I'm, going to buy a workstation with 1TB of RAM and search in Bing "Windows implementation, course work". I hope this will bring an example of a working Windows source code and the browser won't crash.
What does the question "is Python the Future of Programming" mean? So a bunch of noob brogrammers who are Python fanboys think that every other lower level language sucks? And what programming language is their favorite Python interpreter written in? Don't get me wrong, I'm not an anti-Python zealot, Python is awesome when you write web scrapers, glue other low-level components or prototyping something. Python overall has a huge number of useful libraries. But a person must be brain damaged to expect a complex program such as a heavy game, OS or a web browser to be written in Python. Every language has its place.
QA is done differently than "someone testing his code". This is not a true QA. The fact is a fact, even the LTS X.Y.Z versions of vanilla Linux kernels are more like to early betas. As I wrote above, the only truly stable kernels that you can rely on are kernels maintained by Red Hat and Google (maybe SUSE a little bit), the rest are garbage of different degree brokenness. Red Hat maintains a stable kernel driver ABI for 10 years and more in its every major OS version, and RHEL (with its derivatives) is the most successful Linux distro in the commercial world. And yet this tells nothing to the Linux developers who break everything for the sake of change. Yeah, stable api nonsense, almost every other mainstream OS maintains a stable kernel ABI.
Also it's not strictly true that Linux has no QA and no regression testing, it's just not centralized and the level of testing between kernel components is not standardized.
Any complex OS written by a small team will potentially have as many if not more security issues as Linux.
A microkernel OS written by a multi-billion company will potentially have more security issues as monolithic and bloated Linux, considering that Linux kernel (except for Google and Red) has no QA and regression testing?
Advantages of the Linux kernel is a lot of eyeballs, mature codebase, reasonably good architectures, very wide hardware support, and known to scale up to very large systems.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, as I said, the claim that C/C++ are the most efficient high level languages is just a myth. Rust also supports low level code where you control everything, which means there are no optimization limitations. As for faster string processing, in C++ there is std::string_view which just holds 2 pointers to the start and the end of char buffer.
It's called code static checking, but unfortunately it cannot be done at compile time for more complicated algorithms, especially with external parameters. At least partially, it can be done dynamically for debug/profile binaries, but all the checks are removed from the actual released product, and the undiscovered errors can be cumbersome to debug in the future. Also in *most* cases the runtime checked and C/C++ binaries have similar performance, primarily because even the safe languages aggressively optimize the code by eliminating redundant checks (for example, array iteration, it's not necessary to perform bound checks for every index/iterator access, it can be done once before the iteration) and also because in C/C++ the majority of such runtime checks are still performed manually or are done in standard template libraries. Just look at Rust vs C++ benchmarks, in some cases Rust generated faster code and it could be optimized even further. Also for performance critical parts (where the compiler can't eliminate the unneeded checks, or you are writing a driver) Rust lets you write unsafe blocks where no dynamic checks are performed and you can also work with raw pointers, pretty much like in C/C++. There is even an OS kernel written in Rust. The fundamental difference is that Rust is safe by default, and only in few performance critical parts you need to tell the compiler that you know 100% what you are doing. C++ is mostly C by default and C is unsafe by default.
What if the user is not "normal"?
Unlikely, we are used to QWERTY.
Babies can later have their own babies and they could be called BabyBabies.
Webassembly? It's usually much faster and it allows you to use a language other than JS, such as C/C++, Rust, etc.
Agree, though it's still better than the disassembled code of the binary, as the labels, constants and macros are in their original form.
clipboard.
I think the best definition of intelligence is given by Stephen Hawking - the ability to adapt to change .
Yeah, except that Linux is not ready for the desktop.
On my Lenovo G570 the latest chrome also has very high CPU usage on slither.io game and the game turns into a slideshow in places with many snakes. Firefox 61 doesn't suffer from the this problem, despite the fact that its slower almost in any regard. But not this time.
Yeah, but it isn't designed for PCs or laptops and cannot be controlled by keyboard arrow keys (or WASD), you have to click the arrow buttons with the mouse, it really sucks. Besides that, some might want to pirate the full PC version.
Maybe Chrome OS but not Linux. Chrome OS (also Android) kernel is really irrelevant, especially considering Google's plans of ditching it in favor of Fuchsia / Zircon.
Minecraft is available for Linux and the latest dev version of Chrome OS supports Linux apps via Crostini, though it's mostly for developers yet.
Genetic engineering improved beyond everything Hamilton could have dreamed of.
Sadly, this probably means more shit spaghetti code than ever before. Another good reason for Google to ditch this in favor of Fuchsia / Zircon.
So why not completely drop it then replacing with Mate or XFCE? What advantages does LXDE have over XFCE or Mate?
Yeah, but not simultaneously (in CPython, the most popular interpreter). Actually the more threads are added the more the performance suffers.
I'm, going to buy a workstation with 1TB of RAM and search in Bing "Windows implementation, course work". I hope this will bring an example of a working Windows source code and the browser won't crash.
What does the question "is Python the Future of Programming" mean? So a bunch of noob brogrammers who are Python fanboys think that every other lower level language sucks? And what programming language is their favorite Python interpreter written in? Don't get me wrong, I'm not an anti-Python zealot, Python is awesome when you write web scrapers, glue other low-level components or prototyping something. Python overall has a huge number of useful libraries. But a person must be brain damaged to expect a complex program such as a heavy game, OS or a web browser to be written in Python. Every language has its place.
QA is done differently than "someone testing his code". This is not a true QA. The fact is a fact, even the LTS X.Y.Z versions of vanilla Linux kernels are more like to early betas. As I wrote above, the only truly stable kernels that you can rely on are kernels maintained by Red Hat and Google (maybe SUSE a little bit), the rest are garbage of different degree brokenness. Red Hat maintains a stable kernel driver ABI for 10 years and more in its every major OS version, and RHEL (with its derivatives) is the most successful Linux distro in the commercial world. And yet this tells nothing to the Linux developers who break everything for the sake of change. Yeah, stable api nonsense, almost every other mainstream OS maintains a stable kernel ABI.
Linux kernel 4.17.7(!) is broken on 32-bit x86 and even this doesn't stop Greg KH from spitting the usual nonsense, "All users of the 4.17 kernel series must upgrade".
Windows uses hybrid kernel. There is an interesting comment about the differences between NT, MACH and Linux kernels.
A microkernel OS written by a multi-billion company will potentially have more security issues as monolithic and bloated Linux, considering that Linux kernel (except for Google and Red) has no QA and regression testing?
Yeah, top 50 products with security vulnerabilities Linux kernel alone having the most bugs.
So why there are no BSDs (in top 50) then? BSDs are also open source.