captjack 🏴‍☠️✨💜

2mo ago

rust vs c++

#codingstr

See translation

Do you have thoughts?

Replies

@db

2mo ago

But you can sleep better at night

See translation

Expatriotic

@Expatriotic

2mo ago

Isn't rust preferred because it's memory safe? Not a coder but I feel like some additional context is needed no?
I'm curious how an abstracted language like python would fair

See translation

captjack 🏴‍☠️✨💜

@captjack

2mo ago

linux embedded devices - even few KB space matters maybe

See translation

ChipTuner

@ChipTuner

2mo ago

You can even make the hello world much, much smaller:

https://4zm.org/2024/12/25/a-simple-elf.html

See translation

Mike Dilger ☑️

@Mike Dilger ☑️

2mo ago

Until your OS ships /usr/rlib with .rlib files, all the rust dependencies have to be packed into the binary.

Nice thing is, however, if you don't link to any C code the binary doesn't depend on your system libraries and survives distribution upgrades since linux doesn't break userspace and the binary talks directly to linux. [this is not true of gossip which links to C libraries]

See translation

Mike Dilger ☑️

@Mike Dilger ☑️

2mo ago

I got this wrong about .rlib. `cdylib` creates system libraries already (.so, .dylib, or .dll). System-shipped libraries are always the wrong version though. This is what I was talking about here:

Mike Dilger ☑️

•

2mo ago

All of the libraries in /usr/lib should never break userspace. That way I can run a 10 year old binary and it will just work. Because the old ABIs will all still be there in the newest libraries.

Binaries should be compiled for fairly old library APIs so that they work on pretty old installations right up to current ones.

Linux does this in the kernel. If only the libraries did it, linux would be installed on most desktop computers.

See translation

VΔz

@VΔz

2mo ago

Coz Rust pack everything inside it's binary and canbe run everywhere while C depend on the specified system linked lib

See translation