The lighter version he describes would make some assumptions that reduce not just the mental overhead but importantly the _syntax_ overhead. You cant have Arc<dyn Animal> if what you describe is an Animal and the readability is infinitely more important than performance. But if you could create a system where in the lighter Swift/C#-like syntax things are automatically cloned/boxed while in the heavier Rust they aren’t, then maybe you could use Rust everywhere without a syntax tax.
I think a lot of devs are missing out by not considering Scala 3. I use it with the Zio effect system which brings composable concurrency and transactional memory amongst other features. I don't think there is anything comparable in any of the languages listed in TFA.
Do you have any numbers to back you up? That statement sounds very, very wrong to me
Tutorials and books should be more open about that, instead of pushing complex lifetime hacks etc., also show the safe and easy ways.
The article gives Java a worse devx rank than Go and I can't agree. Java is at least on par with go in every aspect of devx, and better in IDE support, expressiveness, and dependency mgmt.
As usual, this depends heavily on what you do. I had written a program where Arc reference counting was 25 % of the runtime. All from a single instance as well. I refactored to use borrows and annotated relevant structs with lifetimes. This also enabled additional optimisation where I could also avoid some copies, and in total I saved around 36% of the total runtime compared to before.
The reason Arc was so expensive here is likely that the reference count was contended, so the cacheline was bouncing back and forth between the cores that ran the threads in the threadpool working on the task.
In conclusion, neither extreme is correct. Often Arc is fine, sometimes it really isn't. And the only way to know is to profile. Always profile, humans are terrible at predicting performance.
(And to quite a few people, coming up with ways to avoid Arc/clone/Box, etc can be fun, so there is that too. If you don't enjoy that, then don't participate in that hobby.)
I think it's fair to say Java's "syntax ergonomics" are a little below the rest / somewhat manual like rust or C++ by default.
In our benchmarking, we've found LLMs perform comparably between languages for one-shot coding submissions, slightly favoring more popular languages. But if you give frontier LLMs a harness and let them iterate / fix compilation errors, they actually significantly outperform in Rust. Meaning, they come up with more insightful ideas when developing Rust, than for example Javascript.
Scroll down to the language comparison chart: https://gertlabs.com/?agentic=agentic
> but types lie at runtime (unsound) requiring you to add your own runtime checks.
I don't recall doing that outside of situations when data is crossing system boundaries.
The vast majority of languages have an unsound type system, yet people are productive in them.
Over the years I've come to realise it's a form of nitpicking. You absolutely need it in some applications, but it's not an important requirement most of the time and it's given undue importance by some.
I believe it’s largely because of these defaults that the idea that TypeScript isn’t really checking types persists. Without the any type, or loose undefined and null checks, your types are as validated as they can be. The only failure point is deserialization or an import which doesn’t type check. And deserialization has this problem in every language.
When you compile C to machine code the executed binary isn’t checking types. This is no different from Typescript that’s been compiled to JavaScript.
function mutateArray(arr: (string | number)[]) {
arr.push(1);
}
const a: string[] = ["one", "two"];
mutateArray(a);
It's a little bit nicer to write but that's almost irrelevant.
It also comes with some runtime cruft.
In reality there is no Kotlin without Java, which means most projects end up a bit 'dual'; every single Kotlin project we've had (except Android) folded back onto Java. Even Scala wasn't worth it, though that's a different question.
I like the style you're describing, thanks for sharing.
Everything is ARC. Clones are cheap. But you still have a reasonable sound type system and no garbage collection.
I get it. Tooling on swift is meh the further you are from Apple, so I’m not suggesting it’s better.
But from a language point of view; is it not essentially a high level rust?
Ps. I don’t really know swift. Just asking where/why I’m wrong really.
If you want to see high level rust, check out Dioxus. It's a web framework, and it's extremely React-like both in architecture but also ergonomics. I actually had AI migrate a JS project to Dioxus and I think it was something like 75% of the code. Pretty decent for a "low level" language.
What this optimizes for is not actually having to deal with the pain in the ass that proper Rust is, but still allowing you to be in the cool kids club writing "blazingly fast software", all while writing what's pretty much Java or C#, but with a terrible non-functional garbage collector instead of a state of the art one.
What garbage collector?
Skill issue
Another observation is developer experience. Again, have you written _any_ Rust? I would argue that the reason Rust is such a joy to use is that the compile time errors are amazing, the way docs are handled are amazing, and so on. I know the eco system for something like Typescript is worlds better, but have you ever tried to _really_ understand what shenanigans are going on behind the scenes on some random hook from say, React? Their docs are so dismal and sparse and make assumptions on what they think you should know. Rust? You go to the doc gen, read what they think you should know as an overview, and if it isn't enough, I can click on "source" to dive deeper. What more could I possibly want?
Perhaps I'm just triggered. The discussion on Rust always seems to be fad or hype driven and almost always have very little to do with how it is to actually use it. If I have to read about compile times, again, I'm going to scream. Of all the languages I've used, it is one of the best in terms of a mature project needing new features or refactors. This is mentioned in some articles, but mostly we hear about "velocity" from some one dimensional perspective, usually someone from the web space, where it is arguable if the person should even bother trying to use Rust in the first place.
Apologies for the rant, but at this point I think Rust as a buzz word for article engagement has become tiring because it seems clear to me that these people aren't _actually_ interested in Rust at all. Who gives a shit what someone on Reddit thinks of your use of clone??
It is too easy to trap yourself in by sprinkling in Sized and derive(Hash) ontop of your neat little type hierarchy and then realize, that this tight abstraction is tainted and you cant use dyn anymore. As a follow up trigger: This was when i learned derive macros :)
So someone looking for the perfect languages while actively using the only two languages I actively avoid is very strange to me.
C# has close to zero community and only really works properly in Windows which is far past its glory days. Except for Microsoft aggressively pushing it as a Java alternative it has no right to exist.
Rust is an overcomplicated subset of C++ that solved memory problems the most recent versions of C++ don't have anymore, and only survives by aggressive marketing, full of grouping things together that don't belong together, like C/C++. And memory safety / use-after-free.
If C and C++ are basically the same because they have access to manual memory allocation then Rust/PHP are also basically the same.
And Rust's borrow checker only solves use-after-free which statistically are 10% of memory related vulnerabilities. Not "memory safety" of which 60-70% is just array out of bounds.
Really the worst two languages that both only survive in aggressive marketing.
What do you mean with this? Maybe you are thinking of the old ".NET Framework" runtime, which only runs on Windows? Nowadays there is ".NET Core" which runs on macOS and Linux as well.
You're missing a very fundamental point here, and this is usually something I find with long time C programmers. C is a great, but old language, with decades of overhead on context, tooling, and lib understanding that make getting in to writing C substantially more difficult than say, Rust. We are still humans, and Rust isn't entirely trying to solve C from a fundamental paradigm of handling memory from a technical point of view, but more from a programmer one. Your comment about solving memory bugs is predicated on perfect human usage of C to not write the bug in the first place, which is precisely one of the many problems Rust is looking to solve.