Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

True, but most Rust zealots (including me, though I'm reformed) haven't contributed anything to LLVM.

Most Rust developers aren't Rust zealots. It's largely people who are new to the language, I think.



The original person said "evangelists" and then slid into "zealotry." And I find a lot of anti-Rust folks seem to think anyone who likes Rust is a "zealot." YMMV.

I think that this is just a hard conversation to have, with a ton of different groups who all want different things, and have different incentives.


I like rust. What I don't like is people who pretend that unsafe rust is any better than C++ or C.


But it is. Unlike C/C++, Rust does not have undefined signed integer overflow or strict aliasing rules. Furthermore, you can do a few more things with pointers that are undefined in C/C++ (e.g., implementing offsetof the naïve way in C/C++ is undefined behavior, but would not be in Rust [assuming you use raw references, which are still in the process of being added]).

In general, there's a slice of behavior that's undefined behavior in C/C++ that isn't undefined behavior in Rust, and for people who want C to really be "portable assembly," Rust is arguably a slightly better choice as a result of being less likely to accidentally trip up on undefined behavior.


Unsafe Rust is harder to predict the behaviour of than C – at least, when you're doing completely off the wall stuff like re-using the stack in two threads. You can keep it contained, though, and so long as your unsafe Rust is keeping the language's invariants, the code is safe; therefore, you know where to start looking when there's trouble to be found.

I think it depends on what you're trying to do.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: