Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

But is Rust a more faithful model of HW?

I'm happy to accept that C sucks (it does) and that Rust and others are superior (they are). But if you stop at the quoted statement, you've not said much. I upvoted the submission blindly, then read it, then un-upvoted it. TFA is not useful. It would have been better to not write TFA at all. There already are many many very good articles about how Rust is better than C.



I don't really understand why Rust is in this discussion at all. This isn't a post about Rust.

(And Rust is not really any better than C in this regard. At least, in a vacuum. I guess you could make the argument that it's better because fewer people have false beliefs about it, but that's not an argument I'm making, either in the blog post nor here.)


Probably the obvious reason: that anything you write that has even the most tangential relevance to Rust means that people will think you're talking about Rust…


> But is Rust a more faithful model of HW?

As far as I know Rust doesn't claim to be, or have legions of people claiming it is.


No, it isn't but I don't see anyone making the claim that Rust is a faithful model of the hardware.

That's quite common take on C though, which is not that wrong, if you go back in history far enough. It's quite wrong today though.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: