The fact that a processor can change "00011010" into a symbol is magic beans to me.
They're not. It's just that nobody has anything bad to say about languages they don't use for real work.
Ever read the whole worse-is-better back and forth?
I gather you didn't have a dubious pleasure of using Spring framework
Back in the late 90's and early 2000's, hardware vendors (including Sun Microsystems themselves) made some major bank selling dedicated "Java engine" hardware. I remain convinced that Java is as pants-shittingly inefficient in memory use and performance as it is largely because the committee that cursed us with this abomination was comprised entirely of people who had expensive hardware to sell to people who complained about Java's footprint.
It's especially disappointing since it ignores the bigger problem both languages have in common: they're both wholly owned and controlled by companies who are absolute cunts. Oracle is pure evil incarnate and always has been, and Microsoft has slowly been transitioning from "pure evil incarnate" to "Clark Griswold leading the pajeets" levels of incompetence. They're both still malevolent though.
I thought I was the only person left in the world who knows what Erlang is. You've made me so happy!
My nigga. C++ is a blast, and perhaps I'm just a masochist but I enjoyed learning it. Being fluent in it has also been a boon in distinguishing myself from other "senior" level applicants when looking for work. If you're asked in an interview how you'd go about building a cross-platform desktop application to do some arbitrary "trendy" thing, they won't disqualify you for saying you'd build it in Electron. But you'll get an approving nod and a quiet bump to the top of the list if you say you'd rather build it in C++ and Qt. There's still a lot of value in shipping a computer program that doesn't require a 100MB fucking runtime just to present a login window and a settings panel.
You'll go far with this attitude. Nowhere good, mind you, but at least it'll be an entertaining voyage.
How does C++ or regular C compare with Rust?
whatever you do with it, be warned that Rust's compile times are legendarily atrocious. People really underestimate how much of a detriment that can be to productivity.
C and moreso C++ are actually useful.
So if Rust is supposed to be superior to C, then why does it take so much compile time?
1) Rust and C are not really comparable. Rust is a competitor to C++ (I use the term 'competitor' loosely)
because it used to be all that you had at your disposal was stuff like raw object/array allocations (new, new [], malloc, delete, delete [], free, realloc). Those were notoriously difficult to manage for even high level experts. I've seen actual geniuses screw those up pretty regularly.
apples and oranges. C# is garbage collected. You don't have to do memory management at all*
Just ignore anything written by non-Euro ESL types.
I think it's more something like,
} // main are not as good asfunction main
// code
end mainint main and void main. There are many good examples of times when a new meme comes out and some programmers like it and others feel that it's religiously heretical to start using it. The question you might want to be asking is, "Why is Java so much like C++?"Rust compiles statically linked binaries by default. C usually dynamically links against the system C library. Rust also doesn't have a standard ABI, they currently use C++'s. Having the same ABI as C++ isn't bad, but lacking the standard means that doing dynamic linking isn't going to be well supported. As an aside, Rust also lacks a good way to do runtime code loading because doing so violates Rust's runtime guarantee of memory safety. Really it's just another monad type thing, but Rust is a more immature language in these ways. Developer compiles should normally be faster then
--release compiles for Rust.
You have to remember back in those days x86 still wasn't the ISA lingua franca it is today, and the differences in latency between CPU instructions and memory loads weren't as big as they are today. Processors got a lot faster while memory didn't. Processors got branch prediction and deep pipeplines, while memory just got bigger. Caches didn't grow proportionally to processor speed up as well.
Who else can achieve 6 nines of up time? Have you heard Facebook is working on a typed Erlang compiler?I thought I was the only person left in the world who knows what Erlang is. You've made me so happy!
I think you are a masochist
Zero cost abstractions always have a cost somewhere. If it isn't in run time, it can be at compile time. The compiler is very clever.
It does both. You can always reach for unsafe operations but they need to be clearly deliniated. But once you're out of unsafe-land you want your code to be as safe and as verifiable as possible.
If you get outside of the normal codemonkey business projects, it's used quite a bit. I programmed in it for 3 years on a gov TS project which I obviously cannot go into detail about, but let's just say it was shit involving "critical defense communication under extremely low baud rates". Shooting the shit around base with other gov contractors (if you have a TS clearance but still private sector, you're in a small pool so you know a lot of the other ppl), they all knew of or worked on previous Erlang projects.I thought I was the only person left in the world who knows what Erlang is. You've made me so happy!