Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #67978 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-08-28 16:11 -0500 |
| Last post | 2019-09-09 01:09 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 165 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
"“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2019-08-28 16:11 -0500
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-08-29 02:36 +0000
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-08-29 11:02 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-08-29 22:21 +1200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-08-29 13:24 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-08-29 23:35 +1200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-08-29 20:00 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-08-29 13:29 -0700
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Mel <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2019-08-30 08:04 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-08-29 23:11 -0700
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-08-30 10:14 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Mel <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2019-08-30 07:42 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-08-29 14:54 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Mel <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2019-08-30 08:07 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2019-08-29 05:14 -0500
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-08-29 06:08 -0700
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Mel <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2019-08-30 08:10 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-08-30 01:00 -0700
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Mel <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2019-08-30 10:16 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-08-30 01:26 -0700
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Mel <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2019-08-30 10:33 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-08-30 06:30 -0700
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Mel <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2019-08-30 15:59 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-08-30 07:42 -0700
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-08-30 14:44 +0000
Re: Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2019-09-03 20:07 +0000
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2019-09-03 17:13 -0500
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-08-29 14:53 +0200
Re: Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2019-08-29 13:14 +0000
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-08-29 15:38 +0200
Re: Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2019-09-03 20:09 +0000
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2019-09-04 08:31 +0300
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2019-09-05 16:55 +0000
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2019-09-05 13:28 -0700
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-09-06 02:36 -0700
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Mel <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2019-08-30 08:13 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-08-30 08:38 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-08-30 08:51 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Mel <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2019-08-30 10:13 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-08-30 10:18 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Mel <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2019-08-30 10:31 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-08-30 10:39 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Mel <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2019-08-30 10:43 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-08-30 10:47 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-08-30 11:41 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-08-30 11:56 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-08-30 13:08 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-08-30 13:47 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2019-08-31 18:03 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-08-31 18:21 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-08-31 23:39 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-09-01 05:16 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-09-01 03:21 -0700
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-09-01 12:25 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-09-01 12:35 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-09-01 04:13 -0700
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-09-01 23:18 +1200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-09-01 14:04 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-09-02 07:20 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-09-01 16:03 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-09-01 18:22 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-09-01 15:23 -0400
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-09-01 22:39 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-09-02 06:47 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-09-02 11:12 -0400
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-09-02 17:52 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2019-09-02 18:43 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-09-02 13:05 -0400
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-09-02 19:33 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-09-02 17:16 -0400
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-09-03 06:49 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-09-03 08:31 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-09-03 08:39 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-09-03 09:06 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-09-03 09:19 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-09-03 10:30 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-09-03 07:11 -0400
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-09-03 13:17 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-09-03 15:29 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-09-03 15:42 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-09-03 15:51 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2019-09-03 17:35 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-09-03 17:43 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2019-09-03 18:51 +0100
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-09-03 20:03 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-09-03 21:53 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-09-04 06:42 +0200
Re: Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2019-09-05 16:56 +0000
Re: Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2019-09-05 11:07 -0700
Re: Re: Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-09-05 19:23 +0000
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-09-06 08:25 +0200
Re: Re: Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2019-09-18 16:55 +0000
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-09-06 07:10 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-09-06 17:16 +1200
Re: Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-09-03 20:33 +0000
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-09-04 06:38 +0200
Re: "?Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly?: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2019-09-03 22:08 +0000
Re: "?Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly?: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-09-04 06:41 +0200
Re: "?Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly?: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-09-04 09:13 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-09-03 21:50 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2019-09-03 22:43 +0100
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-09-04 09:24 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-03 11:03 -0700
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2019-09-03 12:16 -0700
Re: Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-09-03 20:35 +0000
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-09-03 22:49 -0700
Re: Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2019-09-04 00:20 -0700
Re: Comments on third parties Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-09-07 06:59 -0700
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2019-09-05 17:17 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2019-09-05 09:03 -0700
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2019-09-05 20:18 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-09-05 17:16 -0400
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2019-09-05 14:40 -0700
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-09-06 10:05 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-09-04 09:33 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-09-03 22:14 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2019-09-04 10:47 +1000
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-09-04 16:56 +1200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-09-04 09:37 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2019-09-05 22:02 -0400
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2019-08-31 13:20 +0100
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-08-31 23:45 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2019-08-30 14:08 +0300
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Mel <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2019-08-30 13:37 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-08-30 13:48 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2019-08-30 15:18 +0300
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-08-30 14:24 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Mel <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2019-08-30 15:43 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-08-30 16:23 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-08-30 14:40 +0000
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-08-30 16:57 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-08-30 19:19 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-08-31 03:05 +0300
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-08-31 12:18 +1200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-08-31 11:43 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2019-08-31 17:17 +0300
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-08-31 16:28 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-09-01 00:06 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2019-09-01 15:49 +0300
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-09-01 16:12 +0200
Error handling strategies (was: Rust is the future of systems programming C is the new Assembly) legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2019-09-03 20:14 +0000
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-09-08 20:29 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Mel <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2019-08-30 15:42 +0200
Re: "???Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly???: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2019-08-30 21:03 +0000
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-08-31 09:42 +1200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-08-30 23:53 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2019-09-06 06:24 -0500
Re: Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-09-06 13:51 +0000
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2019-09-06 22:03 -0500
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2019-09-07 10:57 -0500
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-09-07 18:17 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-09-07 18:48 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-09-08 12:40 +1200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-09-09 08:59 +0200
Re: Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-09-09 16:35 +0000
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-09-07 18:09 +0100
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2019-09-07 15:32 -0500
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-08-31 04:50 -0700
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2019-09-03 18:39 +0000
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-09-03 20:46 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2019-09-04 01:07 +0100
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" William Ahern <william@25thandClement.com> - 2019-09-03 20:04 -0700
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-09-04 06:46 +0200
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-09-04 04:48 +0000
Re: "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" "Chris M. Thomasson " <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-09-09 01:09 -0700
Page 1 of 9 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-28 16:11 -0500 |
| Subject | "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" |
| Message-ID | <qk6qmj$83p$1@dont-email.me> |
"“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" https://hub.packtpub.com/rust-is-the-future-of-systems-programming-c-is-the-new-assembly-intel-principal-engineer-josh-triplett/ "At Open Source Technology Summit (OSTS) 2019, Josh Triplett, a Principal Engineer at Intel gave an insight into what Intel is contributing to bring the most loved language, Rust to full parity with C. In his talk titled Intel and Rust: the Future of Systems Programming, he also spoke about the history of systems programming, how C became the “default” systems programming language, what features of Rust gives it an edge over C, and much more." Lynn
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-29 02:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <0TG9F.183628$vW4.72670@fx24.am4> |
| In reply to | #67978 |
On 2019-08-28, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote: > "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: > Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" > > https://hub.packtpub.com/rust-is-the-future-of-systems-programming-c-is-the-new-assembly-intel-principal-engineer-josh-triplett/ > > "At Open Source Technology Summit (OSTS) 2019, Josh Triplett, a > Principal Engineer at Intel gave an insight into what Intel is > contributing to bring the most loved language, Rust to full parity with > C. In his talk titled Intel and Rust: the Future of Systems Programming, > he also spoke about the history of systems programming, how C became the > “default” systems programming language, what features of Rust gives it > an edge over C, and much more." Rust is nowhere near C. Actually, nowhere near C++. It is nice language, but not for low level programming. During years they ditched GC and most of the things that cripples determinism and performance, it is ok, but without pointer arithmetic and null pointers it is high level language. Having to convert pointer to int and back in order to perform arithmetic is worse that doing it in assembler. But what Rust got it right is error handling, much better than excpetions. But not having inheritance and forbidding two mutable references to distinct array elements is stupid. Also no tail recursion optimisation and no way to disable array checks. > > Lynn > -- press any key to continue or any other to quit... U ničemu ja ne uživam kao u svom statusu INVALIDA -- Zli Zec Na divljem zapadu i nije bilo tako puno nasilja, upravo zato jer su svi bili naoruzani. -- Mladen Gogala
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-29 11:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qk84b7$80n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #67988 |
On 29/08/2019 04:36, Melzzzzz wrote: > On 2019-08-28, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote: >> "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: >> Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" >> >> https://hub.packtpub.com/rust-is-the-future-of-systems-programming-c-is-the-new-assembly-intel-principal-engineer-josh-triplett/ >> >> "At Open Source Technology Summit (OSTS) 2019, Josh Triplett, a >> Principal Engineer at Intel gave an insight into what Intel is >> contributing to bring the most loved language, Rust to full parity with >> C. In his talk titled Intel and Rust: the Future of Systems Programming, >> he also spoke about the history of systems programming, how C became the >> “default” systems programming language, what features of Rust gives it >> an edge over C, and much more." > > Rust is nowhere near C. Actually, nowhere near C++. It is nice language, > but not for low level programming. During years they ditched GC and most > of the things that cripples determinism and performance, it is ok, but > without pointer arithmetic and null pointers it is high level language. > Having to convert pointer to int and back in order to perform arithmetic > is worse that doing it in assembler. That sounds terrible. (I am not very familiar with Rust.) > But what Rust got it right is error handling, much better than > excpetions. But not having inheritance and forbidding two mutable > references to distinct array elements is stupid. I have worked with a C-like language which had that many of that kind of restriction (XC for the XMOS microcontrollers, if anyone is curious). For a lot of code, it can be helpful - it allowed the compiler to find lots of situations that could be problematic, especially in heavily threaded and parallel code. But you invariably had situations where the restrictions were too much - you needed shared access, or whatever, in cases where you know they are safe. This typically lead to inline assembly code to get round the safety limitations imposed by the language and compiler - that was /not/ a good situation! > Also no tail recursion optimisation and no way to disable array checks. > Surely tail recursion optimisation is just a matter of the compiler? C and C++ don't have any mention of such optimisations in their standards, but a compiler can do it as long as the code works under the "as if" rule. Does the same not apply to Rust? As for array checks, again I would think a compiler could elide a fair number of them, reducing the cost of having them on all the time. One thing that I gather Rust does well, that C++ has trouble with, is that when you do the Rust equivalent of std::move'ing something, any attempt to use the moved-from object is flagged by the compiler. I think that would be good to spot in C++.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-29 22:21 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <gspn8jF75cdU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #67991 |
On 29/08/2019 21:02, David Brown wrote: > > One thing that I gather Rust does well, that C++ has trouble with, is > that when you do the Rust equivalent of std::move'ing something, any > attempt to use the moved-from object is flagged by the compiler. I > think that would be good to spot in C++. clang-tidy does a pretty good job with "bugprone-use-after-move" <https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/bugprone-use-after-move.html> -- Ian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-29 13:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qk8cm5$mhr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #67994 |
On 29/08/2019 12:21, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 29/08/2019 21:02, David Brown wrote:
>>
>> One thing that I gather Rust does well, that C++ has trouble with, is
>> that when you do the Rust equivalent of std::move'ing something, any
>> attempt to use the moved-from object is flagged by the compiler. I
>> think that would be good to spot in C++.
>
> clang-tidy does a pretty good job with "bugprone-use-after-move"
> <https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/bugprone-use-after-move.html>
>
Yes, I saw that after googling a bit.
I would have thought, however, that pretty much any use (other than
assignment of some sort) of a named object after it is moved, is likely
to be a bug. And it is therefore something that could be warning about
by default.
#include <memory>
extern int a, b, c;
void foo(void) {
auto p = std::make_unique<int>(3);
a = *p;
auto q = std::move(p);
b = *q;
c = *p;
}
Both clang and gcc are smart enough to move the value 3 directly into
"a" and "b", and if the last line is omitted, they can remove the call
to "new" (at least in their trunk versions). Both are smart enough to
know that "c = *p;" is undefined behaviour here, and generate "ud2"
instructions on x86.
Yet neither compiler warns about this clearly wrong behaviour despite
-Wall -Wextra.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-29 23:35 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <gsprj9F75cdU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #67995 |
On 29/08/2019 23:24, David Brown wrote:
> On 29/08/2019 12:21, Ian Collins wrote:
>> On 29/08/2019 21:02, David Brown wrote:
>>>
>>> One thing that I gather Rust does well, that C++ has trouble with, is
>>> that when you do the Rust equivalent of std::move'ing something, any
>>> attempt to use the moved-from object is flagged by the compiler. I
>>> think that would be good to spot in C++.
>>
>> clang-tidy does a pretty good job with "bugprone-use-after-move"
>> <https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/bugprone-use-after-move.html>
>>
>
> Yes, I saw that after googling a bit.
>
> I would have thought, however, that pretty much any use (other than
> assignment of some sort) of a named object after it is moved, is likely
> to be a bug. And it is therefore something that could be warning about
> by default.
>
>
> #include <memory>
>
> extern int a, b, c;
>
>
> void foo(void) {
> auto p = std::make_unique<int>(3);
> a = *p;
> auto q = std::move(p);
> b = *q;
> c = *p;
> }
>
>
> Both clang and gcc are smart enough to move the value 3 directly into
> "a" and "b", and if the last line is omitted, they can remove the call
> to "new" (at least in their trunk versions). Both are smart enough to
> know that "c = *p;" is undefined behaviour here, and generate "ud2"
> instructions on x86.
>
> Yet neither compiler warns about this clearly wrong behaviour despite
> -Wall -Wextra.
Use a bigger hammer!
$ clang-tidy x.cc
1 warning generated.
/tmp/x.cc:11:9: warning: Dereference of null smart pointer 'p' of type
'std::unique_ptr' [clang-analyzer-cplusplus.Move]
c = *p;
^
/tmp/x.cc:9:14: note: Smart pointer 'p' of type 'std::unique_ptr' is
reset to null when moved from
auto q = std::move(p);
^
/tmp/x.cc:11:9: note: Dereference of null smart pointer 'p' of type
'std::unique_ptr'
c = *p;
--
Ian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-29 20:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qk93rf$7i3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #67996 |
On 29/08/2019 13:35, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 29/08/2019 23:24, David Brown wrote:
>> On 29/08/2019 12:21, Ian Collins wrote:
>>> On 29/08/2019 21:02, David Brown wrote:
>>>>
>>>> One thing that I gather Rust does well, that C++ has trouble with, is
>>>> that when you do the Rust equivalent of std::move'ing something, any
>>>> attempt to use the moved-from object is flagged by the compiler. I
>>>> think that would be good to spot in C++.
>>>
>>> clang-tidy does a pretty good job with "bugprone-use-after-move"
>>> <https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/bugprone-use-after-move.html>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I saw that after googling a bit.
>>
>> I would have thought, however, that pretty much any use (other than
>> assignment of some sort) of a named object after it is moved, is likely
>> to be a bug. And it is therefore something that could be warning about
>> by default.
>>
>>
>> #include <memory>
>>
>> extern int a, b, c;
>>
>>
>> void foo(void) {
>> auto p = std::make_unique<int>(3);
>> a = *p;
>> auto q = std::move(p);
>> b = *q;
>> c = *p;
>> }
>>
>>
>> Both clang and gcc are smart enough to move the value 3 directly into
>> "a" and "b", and if the last line is omitted, they can remove the call
>> to "new" (at least in their trunk versions). Both are smart enough to
>> know that "c = *p;" is undefined behaviour here, and generate "ud2"
>> instructions on x86.
>>
>> Yet neither compiler warns about this clearly wrong behaviour despite
>> -Wall -Wextra.
>
> Use a bigger hammer!
>
I might well do that. But it won't stop me wanting the feature in the
tools I already use.
> $ clang-tidy x.cc
>
> 1 warning generated.
> /tmp/x.cc:11:9: warning: Dereference of null smart pointer 'p' of type
> 'std::unique_ptr' [clang-analyzer-cplusplus.Move]
> c = *p;
> ^
> /tmp/x.cc:9:14: note: Smart pointer 'p' of type 'std::unique_ptr' is
> reset to null when moved from
> auto q = std::move(p);
> ^
> /tmp/x.cc:11:9: note: Dereference of null smart pointer 'p' of type
> 'std::unique_ptr'
> c = *p;
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-29 13:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnd0gnyaug.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #67991 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> On 29/08/2019 04:36, Melzzzzz wrote:
[...]
>> Rust is nowhere near C. Actually, nowhere near C++. It is nice language,
>> but not for low level programming. During years they ditched GC and most
>> of the things that cripples determinism and performance, it is ok, but
>> without pointer arithmetic and null pointers it is high level language.
>> Having to convert pointer to int and back in order to perform arithmetic
>> is worse that doing it in assembler.
>
> That sounds terrible. (I am not very familiar with Rust.)
What's terrible about it? Rust doesn't particularly need pointer
arithmetic; unlike C, it's array indexing isn't defined in terms of
pointers.
[...]
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mel <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-30 08:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <almarsoft.1419227881502422743@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #68005 |
On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 13:29:11 -0700, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > > On 29/08/2019 04:36, Melzzzzz wrote: > [...] > >> Rust is nowhere near C. Actually, nowhere near C++. It is nice language, > >> but not for low level programming. During years they ditched GC and most > >> of the things that cripples determinism and performance, it is ok, but > >> without pointer arithmetic and null pointers it is high level language. > >> Having to convert pointer to int and back in order to perform arithmetic > >> is worse that doing it in assembler. > > > > That sounds terrible. (I am not very familiar with Rust.) > What's terrible about it? Rust doesn't particularly need pointer > arithmetic; unlike C, it's array indexing isn't defined in terms of > pointers. You need pointers for low level things. In rust you need unsafe blocks for almost anything. -- Press any key to continue or any other to quit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-29 23:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln8srbxjvh.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #68008 |
Mel <mel@zzzzz.com> writes:
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 13:29:11 -0700, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
> wrote:
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>> > On 29/08/2019 04:36, Melzzzzz wrote:
>> [...]
>> >> Rust is nowhere near C. Actually, nowhere near C++. It is nice
>> >> language, but not for low level programming. During years they
>> >> ditched GC and most of the things that cripples determinism and
>> >> performance, it is ok, but without pointer arithmetic and null
>> >> pointers it is high level language. Having to convert pointer to
>> >> int and back in order to perform arithmetic is worse that doing it
>> >> in assembler.
>> >
>> > That sounds terrible. (I am not very familiar with Rust.)
>
>> What's terrible about it? Rust doesn't particularly need pointer
>> arithmetic; unlike C, it's array indexing isn't defined in terms of
>> pointers.
>
> You need pointers for low level things.
You need pointer *arithmetic* for far fewer things than you need
pointers for.
> In rust you need unsafe
> blocks for almost anything.
So use unsafe blocks.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-30 10:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qkalta$vtf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #68005 |
On 29/08/2019 22:29, Keith Thompson wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> On 29/08/2019 04:36, Melzzzzz wrote: > [...] >>> Rust is nowhere near C. Actually, nowhere near C++. It is nice language, >>> but not for low level programming. During years they ditched GC and most >>> of the things that cripples determinism and performance, it is ok, but >>> without pointer arithmetic and null pointers it is high level language. >>> Having to convert pointer to int and back in order to perform arithmetic >>> is worse that doing it in assembler. >> >> That sounds terrible. (I am not very familiar with Rust.) > > What's terrible about it? Rust doesn't particularly need pointer > arithmetic; unlike C, it's array indexing isn't defined in terms of > pointers. > (Again, let me note that I know little about Rust - I've read some stuff, but never used it. So if I get things wrong about it, I hope to be corrected.) As you say in your other post, pointer arithmetic isn't actually used that much in C or C++, once you discount array access and iterators which would be handled in a more "high level" manner in a non-C language. But sometimes - even if it is only occasionally - it /is/ useful. This can be especially true in low-level and systems code, which apparently is a target for Rust. The whole idea of Rust is to be "safer" than C - it aims to turn logical errors such as misuse of pointers, confusion about owners, etc., into compiler errors. That is a great ambition. But to work properly, you have to follow the rules - workarounds that go outside those rules should be as limited as possible, and strongly discouraged if they can't be blocked by tools. The language seems to be saying "We guarantee your code will avoid null pointer dereferences, buffer overflows, use after free, memory leaks, and all the pointer-related problems that plague C programmers." So far, so good. Then it says "We realise that is too limiting sometimes, so here are the ways to cheat, hack, and mess about under the hood". Your guarantees are out the window, and you are back to /exactly/ the same situation as you have in C - design carefully, code carefully to keep your code safe, because the language and tools won't do it for you. So it is not so much the idea of doing pointer arithmetic manually as integer arithmetic that concerns me (though it might be a step lower level than C's pointer arithmetic). It is the idea that the language allows it and that it is considered an acceptable solution that bothers me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mel <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-30 07:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <almarsoft.2889963994277620868@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #67991 |
On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 11:02:30 +0200, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > One thing that I gather Rust does well, that C++ has trouble with, is > that when you do the Rust equivalent of std::move'ing something, any > attempt to use the moved-from object is flagged by the compiler. I > think that would be good to spot in C++. Rust move is built into language. Moved objects destructor is not called. -- Press any key to continue or any other to quit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-29 14:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qk8htr$ua3$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #67988 |
> Rust is nowhere near C. Actually, nowhere near C++. It is nice language, > but not for low level programming. During years they ditched GC and most > of the things that cripples determinism and performance, ... Rust has no GC, but works with counted references.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mel <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-30 08:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <almarsoft.954647121221868192@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #67998 |
On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 14:54:18 +0200, Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: > > Rust is nowhere near C. Actually, nowhere near C++. It is nice language, > > but not for low level programming. During years they ditched GC and most > > of the things that cripples determinism and performance, ... > Rust has no GC, but works with counted references. Yes, but it is not much used. Box, owned reference is built in, i zhink that rc is not built in -- Press any key to continue or any other to quit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-29 05:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <qk88hr$uju$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #67978 |
On 8/28/2019 4:11 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote: > "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: > Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" > > https://hub.packtpub.com/rust-is-the-future-of-systems-programming-c-is-the-new-assembly-intel-principal-engineer-josh-triplett/ > > > "At Open Source Technology Summit (OSTS) 2019, Josh Triplett, a > Principal Engineer at Intel gave an insight into what Intel is > contributing to bring the most loved language, Rust to full parity with > C. In his talk titled Intel and Rust: the Future of Systems Programming, > he also spoke about the history of systems programming, how C became the > “default” systems programming language, what features of Rust gives it > an edge over C, and much more." > How about, instead: We take C; We add some features to support things like bounds-checked arrays and similar; We mostly call it done. Many past variants of bounds-checked arrays did funky things with the syntax, which is a problem if one wants to be able to make it work in a compiler without support for this feature (eg: via non-convoluted use of defines). My thought is, say: _BoundsCheck int *arr; Which behaves sorta like "int[] arr;" in Java or similar. Then it is given a shorthand in a header (eg: bounded), which becomes no-op if the compiler doesn't support it. Otherwise, it behaves mostly like a normal pointer, apart from potential runtime bounds checking, and a different internal representation. May decay into a normal pointer, potentially with a warning. While at it, something like a standardized header for accessing misaligned and explicit endianess values would be nice. eg: uint32_t getuint32le(void *ptr); void setint32le(void *ptr, int32_t val); ... Where: le: little endian, be: big endian, no suffix: native endian. And, these functions work regardless of alignment. This being semi-common boilerplate one either needs to copy around or reimplement fairly often (and for which the optimal way to do these varies between compilers; and with some dependence on target architecture). > Lynn >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-29 06:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ef21d83e-b6fc-4465-af28-e15ab398cdcf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #67993 |
On Thursday, 29 August 2019 13:14:29 UTC+3, BGB wrote: > On 8/28/2019 4:11 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote: > > "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assembly”: > > Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" > > > > https://hub.packtpub.com/rust-is-the-future-of-systems-programming-c-is-the-new-assembly-intel-principal-engineer-josh-triplett/ > > > > > > "At Open Source Technology Summit (OSTS) 2019, Josh Triplett, a > > Principal Engineer at Intel gave an insight into what Intel is > > contributing to bring the most loved language, Rust to full parity with > > C. In his talk titled Intel and Rust: the Future of Systems Programming, > > he also spoke about the history of systems programming, how C became the > > “default” systems programming language, what features of Rust gives it > > an edge over C, and much more." > > > > How about, instead: > We take C; > We add some features to support things like bounds-checked arrays and > similar; > We mostly call it done. Rust supports lot of interesting safety features (like RAII, smart pointers, ownership, generics, move semantics, thread safety). Adding some safe features at side does not help as history with C++ shows. Result is bigger language with all the unsafe stuff still there and valid. OTOH if to cripple the unsafe features a bit then result is some kind of fourth language that is neither C, C++ nor Rust.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mel <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-30 08:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <almarsoft.3561341154632102436@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #67999 |
On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 06:08:13 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib<ootiib@hot.ee> wrote: > On Thursday, 29 August 2019 13:14:29 UTC+3, BGB wrote: > > On 8/28/2019 4:11 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote: > > > "“Rust is the future of systems programming, C is the new Assem= > bly”: > > > Intel principal engineer, Josh Triplett" > > > > > > https://hub.packtpub.com/rust-is-the-future-of-systems-programming-c-is = > -the-new-assembly-intel-principal-engineer-josh-triplett/ > > > > > > > > > "At Open Source Technology Summit (OSTS) 2019, Josh Triplett, a > > > Principal Engineer at Intel gave an insight into what Intel is > > > contributing to bring the most loved language, Rust to full parity with= > > > C. In his talk titled Intel and Rust: the Future of Systems Programming= > , > > > he also spoke about the history of systems programming, how C became th= > e > > > “default” systems programming language, what features o= > f Rust gives it > > > an edge over C, and much more." > > > > > > > How about, instead: > > We take C; > > We add some features to support things like bounds-checked arrays and > > similar; > > We mostly call it done. > Rust supports lot of interesting safety features (like RAII, smart pointers= > , > ownership, generics, move semantics, thread safety). > Adding some safe features at side does not help as history with C++ shows. > Result is bigger language with all the unsafe stuff still there and valid. > OTOH if to cripple the unsafe features a bit then result is some kind of > fourth language that is neither C, C++ nor Rust. Rust generics are interface based. You cant do anything with generic type unless you tell which interfaces satisfies. -- Press any key to continue or any other to quit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-30 01:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f6bbb6aa-5a97-4d2b-819d-06110663b4e2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #68010 |
On Friday, 30 August 2019 09:11:01 UTC+3, Mel wrote: > On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 06:08:13 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib<ootiib@hot.ee> > wrote: > > > Rust supports lot of interesting safety features (like RAII, smart > > pointers, ownership, generics, move semantics, thread safety). > > Adding some safe features at side does not help as history with > > C++ shows. > > Result is bigger language with all the unsafe stuff still there and > > valid. > > OTOH if to cripple the unsafe features a bit then result is some > > kind of fourth language that is neither C, C++ nor Rust. > > Rust generics are interface based. You cant do anything with > generic type unless you tell which interfaces satisfies. Perhaps I don't understand what you mean. Can you bring example? The main point of generics seems to work in Rust about like in C++ templates. There are generic functions, data types and methods. Instantiations of these work like concrete functions, data types and methods. It is more clear, efficient and/or type-safe than what can be done in C. Type erasure through "void*" or "..." function parameters is type- unsafe and can be inefficient. Code generated with preprocessor can be type safe and efficient but might have unneeded verbosity in interface or to be hard to debug. So it is often better to have copy-paste code in C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mel <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-30 10:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <almarsoft.4991003140716567871@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #68017 |
On Fri, 30 Aug 2019 01:00:48 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib<ootiib@hot.ee> wrote: > > Rust generics are interface based. You cant do anything with > > generic type unless you tell which interfaces satisfies. > Perhaps I don't understand what you mean. Can you bring example? > The main point of generics seems to work in Rust about like in C++ Not even close. Imagin that you have to cite what abstract base classes tvpe inherits, and only thing you can do with type is trough interface... -- Press any key to continue or any other to quit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-30 01:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bb70150c-dec0-4d1f-9847-d448cacbdbce@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #68020 |
On Friday, 30 August 2019 11:16:32 UTC+3, Mel wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Aug 2019 01:00:48 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib<ootiib@hot.ee>
> wrote:
> > > Rust generics are interface based. You cant do anything with
> > > generic type unless you tell which interfaces satisfies.
>
>
>
>
> > Perhaps I don't understand what you mean. Can you bring example?
> > The main point of generics seems to work in Rust about like in C++
>
> Not even close. Imagin that you have to cite what abstract base
> classes tvpe inherits, and only thing you can do with type is trough
> interface...
The examples in documentation ...
<https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch10-00-generics.html>
... are like that:
// generic type
struct Point<T> {
x: T,
y: T,
}
// generic method of generic type
impl<T> Point<T> {
fn x(&self) -> &T {
&self.x
}
}
// usage
fn main() {
let p = Point { x: 5, y: 10 };
println!("p.x = {}", p.x());
}
That does not seem to fit with what you describe.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 9 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web