Rust compared to C#


#1

Continuing the discussion from Rust beginner notes & questions:

The discussion that revolved around C# is linked here. Relevant quotes from the linked posts are given below.








Rust beginner notes & questions
Difficulty of learning rust and further work on the learning curve
Subsubtopic: dereferencing and strings (especially interop)
#2

This discussion mentions various ways in which Rust compares to C#. Since C# uses a garbage collector, the discussion is moot for any mission-critical code (GC cannot ensure hiccups don’t occur). For anything else, here are some contrasting views.


#3

Can you please explain why you are creating all those threads? I don’t get it :confused:


#4

The linked posts come from a discussion in a meta-thread that ended up throwing C# in the mix. This here groups those topics for future reference, or for continued discussion. The hope is that it captures valuable insights that might otherwise get lost in a 150 post topic.


#5

I’m not sure whether every possible discussion deserves to be discussed just because it is presented as a strong opinion.

In my humble opinion, before flooding this forum with a bunch of topics, it would be good to ask oneself: does this topic bunch bring any valuable and not considered yet experience to Rust or is it just a matter of stating an opinion? Is there is any specific proposal or problem statement in those that are not being explored yet? What’s the aim of it? Are all topics equally important?

My problem with it is just the sheer number of topics posted, which monopolize all the forum attention.


#6

Agreed;

For me personally, I am a bit burned out about that topic, and anything related to it.
Even though the amount of activity suggests it was a very interesting topic to explore, the feel of the thread wasn’t very pleasant, and I’d rather not expand that feeling to ~50% of the current forum-view.

I do not mean to sound denigrating, I am awed at your tireless effort to catalogue all the (wild, diverse) tangents that were touched on in the original thread (such dedication! :heart:), However, I personally don’t believe those tangents themselves are worth that dedication: The topic was fairly unstructured, and most of the points raised had fairly definite answers (or at least, definitive statements of the different positions) inside the topic already.
I would be perfectly OK with leaving it at that.

What I personally consider the worthwhile discussion point has been (rather skilfully :heart:) extracted into Towards a more perfect RustIO by @gbutler69
There the original participants are productively exploring ways to write a new Rust IO API, without all the side-tracking and opinion-stating of the original thread.


#7

So you don’t think that someone else will seek to challenge Rust’s design features with similar arguments in the future? The problem with keeping everything hidden in the morass of the original thread is that the discussion is so long that people are replying without being able to filter out the main topics because you need to spend 2 hours doing that. The point of extracting the information is to make it reusable for future reference.


#8

About half of them did have answers, the other half have decent points that were just plainly missed in the crossfire.


#9

I had hoped to hide the subtopics. Only the main points were supposed to get separate posts and the rest hidden within those main topics.