Comment by inigyou

2 days ago

I think the "Fil-C is safer than Rust" thing is an understandable reaction to 10 years of Rust evangelists telling people they have to use Rust otherwise they're stupid and wrong.

9 comments

inigyou

Reply
Aurornis  2 days ago

The reasonable reaction is to ignore the vocal minority.

It’s tiresome when other language communities start engaging in a battle with a vocal minority of another community.

Every language has its annoying maximalist pushers. The play is to ignore them and do what decisions are best for the language, not to let yourself get dragged down into petty language wars where nobody wins.

NBJack  2 days ago

We can learn a lot about memory safety from Rust. But if we can achieve the same dream of Fil-C for other more common languages that need it, Rust's popularity will likely wane.

  • kelnos  2 days ago

    I doubt it. I am a big fan of Rust's memory safety, but it's not just memory safety that draws me to Rust. Having a strong, featureful type system is also a big plus for me, and even if Fil-C could someday magically compile any program or library without modification, and its performance trade offs could be mitigated, I'd still write Rust, because C is miserable to write. (And I say this as a 25+ year C programmer.)

  • 20k  2 days ago

    Fil-C has a large performance impact though, and it'll always be reasonably significant. Rusts popularity has always been the combo of safety and performance, otherwise you might as well just use C#

    • xboxnolifes  2 days ago

      > Rusts popularity has always been the combo of safety and performance, otherwise you might as well just use C#

      Combined with the ability to compile to a single native binary, having a solid package management solution, a fairly advanced type system, and a solid selection of nice language features. Usually you need to give up at least one of those.

      3 replies →