Remix clone Hacker News

I find Rust vastly simpler than C. If the code compiles, it's probably a valid expression of the business logic I encoded. I might've screwed up that logic, of course, and no language can prevent me from messing that up. I know! Many have tried, and I've defeated them with my ability to misrepresent my ideas! But at least with Rust, I'm reasonably confident that the code will actually do the thing I asked it to do. I'm never confident like that with C until I've run it a few hundred times without crashing.

(Yes, I'm familiar with the rich ecosystem around helping devs not write crummy C. I worked at Coverity at one point. If anything, that gave me enormous fear and respect of the hoops you have to jump through to be reasonably sure C code isn't completely broken.)

▲

dboreham 2 days ago | parent [-]

This seems...a very contrarian sentiment. Imho while C might lead you to create slightly fragile code once in a while, Rust is something like two orders of magnitude more complex.

▲

aldanor a day ago | parent | next [-]

Rust is like two orders of magnitude more simple (if you're not going to delve into its darker corners).

You have a single line serialization into/from absolutely anything. You have logging, tracing, cli libraries, error handling - most of those are one liners.

You have enums. Enums are business logic. Enums are often the way the world works.

You press enter and it builds, no pre setups, sub modules, cmake files and whatnot.

▲

ninetyninenine 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

No I know what he’s saying. C is not “slightly fragile code once in a while”. When you up the complexity of the code and the amount of code and the people working on the code the fragility becomes pervasive.

	▲	kstrauser a day ago \| parent [-]
		That's a huge part of it. If I stumble across random Rust code, I can assume that it's using typed data correctly, that it's not accessing freed memory, that it's not allocating but never freeing, that length checks are being enforced, etc. If they weren't, it wouldn't even compile (and the compiler would explain why). Glancing at random C code tells you nothing about what happens with the data flowing into and out of it. In my experience with it, rustc has been insistent on making me write code that's actually correct. I could translate that code back to C and have better C code than I would likely have written on my own. If there were something similar to `gcc -Werror -Weverything-rust-would-complain-about` — and if that thing were even possible — I very well might stick with C. Oh, and something as fast and ergonomic and informative as rust-analyzer would be hugely welcome.