White House: Future Software Should Be Memory Safe - eviltoast

On the one side I really like c and c++ because they’re fun and have great performance; they don’t feel like your fighting the language and let me feel sort of creative in the way I do things(compared with something like Rust or Swift).

On the other hand, when weighing one’s feelings against the common good, I guess it’s not really a contest. Plus I suspect a lot of my annoyance with languages like rust stems from not being as familiar with the paradigm. What do you all think?

  • themusicman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    8 months ago

    There’s always a trade-off. In rust’s case, it’s slow compile times and comparatively slower prototyping. I still make games in rust, but pretending there’s no trade-off involved is wishful thinking

    • Lmaydev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      They mean a trade off in the resulting application. Compile times mean nothing to the end user.

      • Dave.@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        That may be true but if the language is tough to develop with, then those users won’t get a product made with that language, they’ll get a product made with whatever language is easier / more expedient for the developer. Developer time is money, after all.

        • Lmaydev@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          You’d be better just using a managed languages in many cases.

          With tiered jit and careful use of garbage allocations they can actually be the same or faster.