Comment by testdelacc1

Comment by testdelacc1 2 days ago

There’s no Rust fans here, only GC skeptics. GC skeptics existed long before anyone dreamed of Rust and will survive Rust as well.

It’s a pretty reasonable objection too (though I personally don’t agree). C has always been chosen when performance is paramount. For people who prioritise performance it must feel a bit weird to leave performance on the table in this way.

And Jesus Christ, give it a rest with this “Rust fans must be thinking” stuff. It sounds deranged.

vorador 2 days ago

No, back in the day C was used for everything. Vim was not written in C because it needed to wring every last bit of performance out of text editing.

Rewriting everything in rust "for memory-safety" is a false tradeoff given the millions of lines of C code out there and the fact that rewrites always introduce new bugs.

Reply View 3 replies

testdelacc1 2 days ago

Please, I’m begging you, stop talking about Rust. You’re shoehorning Rust into a discussion where it hasn’t been mentioned, just to hate on some imaginary people you think are pushing Rust here. No one is talking about that. You sound deranged and obsessed.
The vast majority of the conversation here is about GC and the performance implications of that. Please stick to the rest of the thread.

Reply View | 2 replies
- brucehoult a day ago
  
  I almost always find that building Boehm GC as a malloc replacement (malloc() -> GC_malloc(), free() -> NOP), and then using LD_PRELOAD to get it used makes any random C/C++ program not only still work but also run faster.
  Not only that, but you can then use GC_FREE_SPACE_DIVISOR to tune RAM usage vs speed to your liking on a program by program (or even instance by instance) basis, something completely impossible with malloc().
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
- vorador 2 days ago
  
  Lol there are right now 33 mentions of rust in this thread but go on..
  
  Reply View | 0 replies