Rust

6046 readers

3 users here now

Welcome to the Rust community! This is a place to discuss about the Rust programming language.

Wormhole

!performance@programming.dev

Credits

The icon is a modified version of the official rust logo (changing the colors to a gradient and black background)

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

snowe@programming.dev

Ategon@programming.dev

EdTheLegendary@programming.dev

kahnclusions@programming.dev

torcherist@programming.dev

Who's working on a "smaller Rust"? (programming.dev)

submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by BatmanAoD@programming.dev to c/rust@programming.dev

63 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Almost five years ago, Saoirse "boats" wrote "Notes on a smaller Rust", and a year after that, revisited the idea.

The basic idea is a language that is highly inspired by Rust but doesn't have the strict constraint of being a "systems" language in the vein of C and C++; in particular, it can have a nontrivial (or "thick") runtime and doesn't need to limit itself to "zero-cost" abstractions.

What languages are being designed that fit this description? I've seen a few scripting languages written in Rust on GitHub, but none of them have been very active. I also recently learned about Hylo, which does have some ideas that I think are promising, but it seems too syntactically alien to really be a "smaller Rust."

Edit to add: I think Graydon Hoare's post about language design choices he would have preferred for Rust also sheds some light on the kind of things a hypothetical "Rust-like but not Rust" language could do differently: https://graydon2.dreamwidth.org/307291.html

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Vorpal@programming.dev 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

can have a nontrivial (or “thick”) runtime and doesn’t need to limit itself to “zero-cost” abstractions.

Wouldn't that be a bigger rust rather than a smaller one?

Not an area I'm particularly interested in, given that I do embedded and hard realtime development. Rust is the best language for that now, I just which allocations were fallible as well. And storage/allocator API was stabilised.

[–] BatmanAoD@programming.dev 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Not unless you consider Go a "bigger" language than Rust. The blog post means "smaller" in terms of what the user has to learn and think about, rather than smaller in implementation size or resulting binary.

[–] Vorpal@programming.dev 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I would indeed consider Go a bigger language, because I do indeed think in terms of the size of the runtime.

But your way of defining it also makes sense. Though in those terms I have no idea if Go is smaller or not (as I don't know Go).

But Rust is still a small language by this definition, compared to for example C++ (which my day job still involves to a large extent). It is also much smaller than Python (much smaller standard library to learn). Definitely smaller than Haskell. Smaller than C I would argue (since there are leas footguns to keep in mind), though C has a smaller standard library to learn.

What other languages do I know... Erlang, hm again the standard library is pretty big, so rust is smaller or similar size I would argue. Shell script? Well arguably all the Unix commands are the standard library, so that would make shell script pretty big.

So yeah, rust is still a pretty small language compared to all other languages I know. Unsafe rust probably isn't, but I have yet to need to write any (except one line to work around AsRawFd vs AsFd mismatch between two libraries).

[–] BatmanAoD@programming.dev 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Go is a "small" language in the sense that it has an exceptionally small number of concepts (i.e. features and syntactic constructs); someone else in this thread made a comment to the effect that it takes almost no time to learn because there's nothing to learn if you've already learned a different language. This is of course an exaggeration, but only slightly: Go was very intentionally and explicitly designed to be as simple as possible to learn and to use. As an example, it famously had no support for generics until almost 10 years after its 1.0 release. I think that when talking about the size of a language, some people do include the standard library while others don't; Go has quite a large standard library, but you don't actually have to learn the whole library or even be aware of what's available in order to be productive.

I personally don't think it makes sense to include the standard library in the "size" of a language for the purpose of this thread, or Boats' original blog posts. The fundamental point is about the learning curve of the language and the amount of work it takes to produce working code, and a large standard library tends to be more convenient, not less. Common functionality that isn't in Rust's standard library tends to come from libraries that become almost ubiquitous, such as serde, regex, crossbeam, and itertools. From the user's perspective, this isn't much more or less complicated than having the same functionality available via the standard library. (Of course, a large standard library certainly makes languages more difficult to implement and/or specify; if I recall correctly, about half the size of the C++ standard is dedicated to the standard library.)

I don't really know how to fairly compare the "size" of Rust and C++, partly because Rust is so much younger, and several C++ "features" overlap with each other or are attempts to replace others (e.g. brace-initialization as a replacement for parentheses). But I don't think I've ever heard someone claim that C++ is "small" or "minimal" in this sense, so it's in no way a good point of comparison for determining whether Rust is "small".

Edit to add: for what it's worth, if I weren't quoting Boats' blog post (which is sort of the "canonical" post on this concept), I probably would have opted for "simpler (to learn & use)" rather than "smaller."