Comments by "mean mole" (@meanmole3212) on "Low Level" channel.

  1. I am not sure if the adoption would be good for the kernel, but it sure as hell would be good for Rust because we'd get best of the best nagging about Rust's shortcomings.
    9
  2. I think you can't write the traditional exploitable buffer overflow weak spots in Rust unless you explicitly use unsafe, which is rarely used, if at all ever. I have never used unsafe except when external library wants me to call unsafe functions. The important safety feature for me is being safe from crashes caused by idiotic memory bugs during runtime. Going from C to Rust is comparable experience to going from typeless language to typed language, you'll save time by catching more errors during compilation phase.
    9
  3. You'll have to put all of your data in flat arrays and perform the algorithms using primitive number values that point to the data array. Combine that with enums for representing states of a tree for example and you'll get a nice, clean and fast program. This way you can write every algorithm. Perhaps not the best idea to start learning the basics compared to something like C# or Kotlin where you can twist references how ever you like to help you model and understand the algorthms more directly without any additional cognitive overhead from the language.
    7
  4. ​ @mariansalam  Rust does not let you move the ownership of data or unique smart pointer inside a function while allowing usage of that data after the function has been called without compiler errors. That is the power C++ can only dream of, not the extra characters you don't need to type.
    5
  5. I guess you can have everything with money and work hours, but maintaining a separate Lua API alongside your game is not a piece of cake. Also, you can't reach same performance with Lua compared to native DLL code. Lua is dynamically typed and not ideal for large and complex software development, which depending on the case, some mods might require.
    5
  6. Have you heard about our lord and saviour, the "cargo check"?
    3
  7.  @seabrookmx  The "Rust's way" happens at compile time without overhead during runtime unlike with C++ if you use smart pointers whose references will be counter during runtime. If you opt for speed by not using smart pointers with C++, you'll pay for it in terms of potential runtime crashes. If you explicitly use Rc in Rust, then you are on the same line with C++'s smart pointers in terms of speed. In Rust you still pay for the complexity of dealing with the borrow checker, which may or may not be a problem dependening on the developer.
    1
  8. "its over"
    1
  9. that is far-right conspiracy, and probably weird too nowadays
    1
  10. ​ @AshnSilvercorp  tell me about it
    1
  11. Yes but you cannot mutate data owned by the Rc references if ownership of the data is shared across multiple different Rc references.
    1
  12. Just learn the basics of C and then move on to Rust. There's no need to torture yourself.
    1