Because you don't need to use the ugly side of C++ too much if you just write application level code. The insanity of C++ comes when you want to write the fastest possible general purpose library.

C is still nice imo. It really does have its place. C++ on the otherhand (or, at least modern C++) is scary.

​@@llothar68 This is probably true.

I have always found the C syntax ugly and the order of function signatures the wrong way round. And I always hated the extra () parenthesis with if statements C++, int divide(int a, int b) { if (b == 0) { throw std::runtime_error("division by zero"); } return a / b; } Rust: fn divide(a: i32, b: i32) -> Result { if b == 0 { return Err(String::from("division by zero")); } Ok(a / b) }

personally I find Rust ugly, but C and C++ especially, are even more ugly to me. So much syntax! urgh. (anyone who have worked seriously with any Lisp flavour will understand my viewpoint, others will just be confused)

30y long pro coder here. And love it as well.

In what use cases?

@@jazzycoder I got job offers every week, without asking, at higher pay I've never had in my career. But you do you.

Can you get me an internship I'm good NGL

@@fabienpenso Of course you, can i sell you a bridge?

Great to hear your reasoning and perspective.

I feel like zig has a great future, but they need to put some more work in

@@stendeter623 and what do you think they are doing? Not working hard enough or what? I see designer himself on chats responding to tech questions and working as late as by 1:30am every day including weekends.

That's just untrue, the borrow checker still exists even in unsafe contexts (You can't pass around references willy-nilly for example). However, you can trivially sneak past the borrow checker with dereferencing a pointer, `UnsafeCell`, `std::mem::transmute` (please don't do this one, specifically), etc.,

I’m tired of people pretending that unsafe throws out all safety guarantees out the window. That’s not true. There’s 5 specific things unsafe lets you do: call unsafe methods, implement unsafe traits, use mutable static variables, access union members and dereference raw pointers. That’s it. Borrow checker still works, you still need to exhaustively match an enum, there’s still bounds checking on data structures, etc.

Not sure if serious or trolling…

You'll be back my friend, you might have left C but C hasn't finished with you yet. You'll soon workout that anytime you want to actually do anything in Rust you'll have to use unsafe mode (so you might as well just go back to C) but with terrible compile times. Also you are now relying on a zillion dependencies being installed with cargo, good luck with that if you're actually working on hardware or even system programming where we need security auditing....

I said, "I'm not ditching C".

@@nickeldan Good man!

I've done some bare metal rust with no runtime. It was a nice experience. To be honest, compared to python, java, js and friends, the size of the runtime is not big.

@@mrpocock Ah, I didn't know that was a thing.

It's how I got I to Rust - rewriting a spark pipeline into one based on DataFusion which is Rust based.

Zig is cool as well but it has a long roadmap till it reaches 1.0.

Agreed, I had a good experience with it. Only waiting on libraries to mature

I am learning Rust after F#. The borrow checker is a bitch, other than that, it is okay.

Borrowing is pretty similar to const references/move-semantics/RAII - pretty standard concepts in C++. The main difference is that the borrowing checker enforces certain invariants, rules that you can't break without using unsafe.

Did I say to learn Rust in this video?

You do not need to know everything in order to have a job in IT. This video is more of an expression of his passion for IT rather than a full course for future jobseekers.

??

yeah its so amazing ... amazingly crap

I love rust and was learning it but paused it for the moment and now I am learning Kotlin for job reasons. Will resume with when I am in a more stable position

Hopefully

> zig to hit 1.0 Most likely not going to happen anytime soon but my bet it will be already production-ready for most of the use cases once they implement incremental compilation and also ditch LLVM

Cool story bro

@@r2com641 thanks glad you liked it

@@jazzycoder all code committed today is tomorrows tech debt, every line of code I write I hope will be deprecated in the future. Entire team is writing rust now though so I’ll take my “stunt productivity” to push us forward as a team and organization any day

@@jazzycoder I feel as though your comments are less about the actual experience I’ve shared here and are more of a projection of a poor experience you’ve had with either a company you’ve worked at or perhaps with team mates that are excited about about Rust. However to address your baseless claims against the reality of my teams experience - firstly no one was forced to write rust; in fact as our company trusts our engineers so much there are almost no restrictions placed so strictly on us that there would have been some sort of “YOU MUST WRITE RUST” proclamation - Secondly the literal point of my rebuild of a particularly cumbersome part of our internal tool chain was to show, exactly that rust is production ready within our product stack today and that the benefits can be realized with minimal additional effort. To speak to your claim of “10x” decrease in output and delivery; I think that is pretty hyperbolic, but most of my team during their ramp and spike periods with rust did experience a 2x at most decrease to their throughput but that was for maybe 3-4 weeks, which was completely planned for and reasonable. To say this makes our business suffer is pretty false for us also - in the last 8 months since our adoption of Rust as a full team we have released about 1.5x the normal amount of new features and most importantly we’ve seen roughly a 75% reducing is support issues raised post release. This was pretty much a roaring success for us, and again I’m sorry that your experience has not been the same but truly I feel that your criticism has less to do with Rust as a language and more to do with the environment in which you work.

they do all kinds of shit language is literally an instrument to do the shit like when you nail the nails you wont choose a big ass hammer. or when you beat a metal rod into the dirt you will take a bigger hammer now

For some projects. A company that large doesn’t use one language for everything.

from what I understand Google actually doesn't use Go that much. They build most of their stuff in C++

Of course, there are many cases where a GC is a show stopper.

The Rust market isn't junior-friendly, currently.

Unless you ever have to deploy your AI in an app to run locally. All this environments are nice but it's such a pain in the arse to make a deployment outside your controlled server world.

There's absolutely no need to put your buffers on the stack. Unless you really want to.

@@peter9477 Interesting... I would've thought that the algorithms would be more limited (slower) if the data was in the heap, but maybe not. Like I said - a whole new world for me. Thanks for the advice, BTW.

@@scottk3292 You could statically allocate a bunch, or heap allocate in advance. As long as you don't need to keep allocating and deallocating on the fly there will be no significant difference in cost wherever they are. It would be unusual to need to do continuous high performance audio processing (as opposed to recording) yet also require dynamic allocation as the sampling occurred. Precalculate required buffer count in advance.

@@peter9477 Fantastic... I'm already learning. Thanks for your help, Peter. This makes good sense.

Name 5 design mistakes in rust

​@@MrTrollland 1. Rust is not Go 2. Rust is not Zig 3. Rust is not primitive as Go 4. Rust is not primitive as Zig 5. Rust is harder than Zig and Go. And learning Rust is very hard task for my gomonkey's brain.

Because C/C++ is responsible for the majority of exploits and vulnerabilities maybe? Also C lacks a lot of features, and modern C++ can be as cryptic (if not more so) than Rust.

@artxiom do we need features, if they are predominant way to spawn vulnerabilities? And yet, vulnerabilities mostly are not dependent on the language but rather runtime and environment. So, my question still is - is it the problem of language or, rather, people who design software? Your feedback is appreciated.

linux works without crap rust perfectly . so don't put something crap langauge like ruST XD

So why are your fellow C devs hating on rust?

@@nanonkay5669 They aren't my 'fellows' as we aren't a community, but sounds just like your typical neckbeareds with lisps.

Because of what Rust represents: idiots who can't write software who need crutches to stop them doing dumb sh*t. Learn how to write software!!!

Don't care enough to hang out and shitpost on Rust YT videos 🙄

Fair, but my interpretation of the "C people that actively hate Rust" is that they are actually C++ devs in disguise, cause actual C people mostly live under rocks anyways, still using C99.

🫡

Check out Polars library, it's a pandas-esque data frame lib written in rust

Correlation does not imply causation.

@@peter9477it does according to the explanations from rust fanboys regarding of why we must use it

@@peter9477 i mean bad Windows product design and vision should harm M$ more than bugs / flaw in Windows kernel hahahaha

@@DirkArnez Ah, I understand now.

Well, as long as they do not get rid of DOS there is no hope, regardless of the language used 😊

Doesn't it though?

@@peter9477 yes why

What r u talking about bro

@@pnk4996 If Microsoft support rust, then Why VS does not support rust

@@jazzycoder Yes you are right that C and C++ will still alive for long time but in my opinion Rust is not a very good language but still better than C++ at least because C++ become a mess and every update for it become more mess one man from C++ standard admit that C++20 has a lot of bad things and they did not experiment it. More over Rust has better environment than C, C++, for example adding a library in C or C++ is a hell while in Rust is so easy, the error message in Rust compiler is much better, the package manager is much better, ... etc. the environment of a language may be more important than the language itself. Actually, I hope big company move to Rust because C++ cannot be fixed at all. for me, even C is better than C++.

OMG. WoooooW really?

this people think cuz microsoft and google put some millions in it rust will become loved by everyone WHILE IT HAS CRAP SYNTAX LOLZ .at least c++ gives you everything you want (you can use its own complex syntax or just use functions/classes and structs without its own complex syntax without operator overloadings and etc etc nobody forces anyone to do anything) even its own problems can be fixed easily it's just they care about old code otherwise they could fix c++ in a days and i'd love to see what will happen to this crap RUST then which cannot even live without c/c++ cuz its based on either gcc or LLVM XD

Of course it is hardly to find, if you're closed in your tiny C++ hole 😂

It's true that, considering its whole history, it's almost 20 years old, although the first official version is considered to have been released in 2015, so about 9 years ago. If anything, despite heavy "marketing" and a lot of hype everywhere, it's seeing very slow adoption in practice. I don't know what its future holds, as I don't have a crystal ball. My personal opinion at this point is that it's a dead end. And I think people should not touch it for anything serious until it at least getsan official written specification, which it still doesh't have (although I know they're working on it.) On corolloary issue is that if you use Rust, you're 100% tied to the Rust foundation. Most other "mainstream" languages have standards (or at least open specifications) and multiple toolchains from multiple organizations/projects. One similar situation was found with Java for a pretty long time, and I think it wasn't good either. Incidentally, Java is declining and soon to be dead IMO.

Name one

Like in any language 😮‍💨. I think Rust just sucks less so far.

🙄 if you got that conclusion from a past video I can’t help you then.

Ask your mom to buy you a faster computer

Tell us you've never actually used Rust, even for hello world. It's not that slow compiling, especially after the first time. For hello world maybe a few seconds.

Bingo. if programmer is idiot he gonna write bad program in any language. Dumb rust community makes it look like memory problem is the only problem we have today that needs to be solved in programming

@@henrymaddocks984I can’t believe that your comment was liked by author of video, that explains his IQ level (and yours)

I was able to learn how to program when I decided to learn Rust and the Bevy game engine. Actually needing to think about how things work more in-depth helped me tremendously. Previously I was learning with C++, JavaScript, python and C# but never really understood what I was doing. Now I can grasp most languages and their unique features whenever I decide to give them a try since I have a frame of reference with Rust and its features. Since Rust is so easy to setup and run I was able to focus and the incredibly helpful compiler errors in my code and understand what was happening under the hood. The official, free Rust Book is super nice for learning as well.

I don't recognise any of claims as true. Rust is hard in the same way C and C++ are. But those relatively new to programming mange with C and C++ so why not Rust? Also, despite your claims of complexity I have written tones of Rust that is hardly more difficult to understand than Javascript or Python.

I’m a beginner js dev and I had no problem learning it, sounds like a skill issue

@@jazzycoder oh shit you’ve been watching me code? Bros in the fbi

@@jazzycoder buddy liked his own comment lol

Ok bro 😂

@@jazzycoder It's a pain in the arse to write a wrapper for a rust library that uses the worldwide accepted C ABI. And then you want to ship this library with your app, setting up the rust environment and compiler again. Figuring out doing rust cross compile to Android and ARM architectures. And then your CTO comes in and ask about what dependencies you pull in. The easyness of cargo and the almost npm like library reuse madness is a failure not a benefit.