Item — HN Reader

Not sure you are trolling us or not, but there is a bit of a contradiction between "here is a huge learning curve to Rust, one that I am still climbing," in the comment above and "is just easier and faster than in C".

It is certainly true that you have a lot of things you can easily have at your fingertips with cargo in Rust, which you might need to first identify or even handcraft (if you have no existing framework to rely on) in C. On the other hand, I am not sure this is a good thing. I am a bit skeptical about the cargo / NPM style of package management.

1 comments

> but there is a bit of a contradiction between "here is a huge learning curve to Rust, one that I am still climbing," in the comment above and "is just easier and faster than in C

I see no contradiction when you realize that no one has ever been proficient enough in C to write code that is free from UB… The problem with C is that cannot realistically be written by humans, so pretty much any language (except C++ …) is going to be “easier than C”.

Wild claims. So many huge projects have been successfully written in C by humans. There are patterns to solve all the built in solutions provided by Rust, how do you imagine Rust got them in the first place?

One tiny example of many here is the Linux kernel.

I'd say we didn't have many options back then except for C and no more than 4-5 others. So we did the things you quoted _despite_ C's drawbacks, not because of them.

I can very easily imagine doing the same things with Rust, with small amount of exceptions (that the core team is working on even now).

And yes Rust learned from the mistakes of the languages before it. Is that a bad thing?