C and memory safety comments by me

Nicholas Wilson via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Fri May 19 06:41:50 PDT 2017


On Friday, 19 May 2017 at 13:35:07 UTC, Tobias Mueller wrote:
> On Friday, 19 May 2017 at 08:58:33 UTC, Wulfklaue wrote:
>> On Thursday, 18 May 2017 at 19:33:25 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> Thanks for the link. I don't understand what they mean in 
>>> saying I don't get Rust's vision.
>>
>> A lot of Rust users seem to think they own the memory safe 
>> market. Language with GC = Bad. What they forget is that a 
>> good GC can be unnoticeable in code execution.
>>
>> Take these silly benchmarks:
>>
>> https://github.com/kostya/benchmarks
>>
>> Despite Rust not being a GC language, you expect the Rust 
>> results to have a lower memory usage then D. Or D to have a 
>> larger execution time for the lower memory ( early GC cleanup 
>> cycles = lower memory usage but performance hits ).
>>
>> The D Ldc vs Rust are the most relevant as its the same 
>> backend. But even with DMD or GCC those cpu/mem results can be 
>> better then Rust. Even Crystal pushes better results on the 
>> same backend.
>>
>> But i was under the assumption that anything that is not Rust 
>> is simply bad? /s
>
> I wonder, did you actually read the comments in linked thread 
> in /r/rust? I don't see any that would support that.
> The comments about D are actually fairly positive in that 
> thread.

I believe he is poking fun at "the typical Reddit Rustacean".


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list