this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2026
79 points (95.4% liked)

Linux

14329 readers
247 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)

Also, check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] farooqkz@realbitcoin.cash 3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Rust indeed has good features I enjoy having them. But the joy I can have in Lisp, I cannot have in other traditional(or ordinary?) languages. I've developed an ML backend with Rust over 3 years to learn that for algorithm research and testing, Lisp ecosystem is much better than Rust. But I haven't done the research yet to see if there is a Lisp other than CL which is performant enough. Because CL is quite obscure and has self contradicting features, thus not mature.

[–] khleedril@cyberplace.social 0 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

@farooqkz @cm0002 From where I'm standing it looks like you are your own worst enemy. You can do your research in any language, or you can research languages.

[–] farooqkz@realbitcoin.cash 1 points 11 hours ago

Of course I can do me research in any language. But what will be the ratio of the effort put on the algorithm itself and its testing? vs the time you have to implement and change the algorithm in that language?

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 29 points 1 day ago

"Programming is fun again"

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 day ago

C was "fun" once. Hell, C is becoming so obscure, it's fun again!

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (3 children)

If anyone has some insight: is Rust more or less verbose than C, generally? Like if Linux would be rewritten in Rust, would the LOC increase or decrease, e.g.?

[–] fubarx@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Rust has a lot more 'batteries included' than C, and the memory ownership model works a lot better than garbage collection or C's YOLO model. It also has built-in async/await. But you're pretty much in the same boat as C when it comes to multiprocessing or thread-safety.

Anyone building a long-running backend service would be wise to take a serious look at Rust. Personally, I'm glad Linus is open to change and isn't digging his heels in on this one.

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

I agree with you on Linus. Very pragmatic here, and for the benefit of all in the case of Rust in the kernel.

And thanks for sharing your insight!

[–] psud@aussie.zone 21 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's easier than C, it's safer than C, the compiler is more helpful than GCC

I think it's fun

Less verbose? I don't think so

Lines of code about the same

For someone starting out as a programmer for low level programming I would recommend rust

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

For the same purpose, would you recommend Rust over Zig?

[–] mschae@discuss.mschae23.de 11 points 1 day ago (2 children)

As someone who has used both (but not for any serious, large projects), I'd say they target different audiences. First and foremost, Zig is not memory-safe in the way Rust is. On the other hand, Zig is way easier to write than unsafe Rust. Rust comes with a lot of features and libraries, while Zig is an intentionally small language, almost minimalistic (kind of like C, but modern).

There are lots of different tradeoffs being made, so yes, I'll give the boring answer and say they are good for different kinds of projects :)

If it's specifically low level programming (I'm envisioning programs where you need fairly direct control over memory, IO, etc.), you'd probably quickly need a lot of unsafe in Rust, which can quickly get very complicated to use safely. So I'd probably recommend Zig for that purpose.

[–] farooqkz@realbitcoin.cash 2 points 11 hours ago

Thank you so much for sharing this. I always wondered about Zig :)

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

I should've known it's a "it depends" answer. 😆 It's programming languages after all. 😉

Thanks for the insight though, I appreciate it! 🙏

[–] psud@aussie.zone 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Alright, thank you.

[–] HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think at the lowest level, it is very similar.

But with a bit more abstraction, Rust is somewhat less verbose, especially when the same efficiency is required. Thinking im iterators / loops or generics, or enumerations / sum types. Also, the module system, build system, integrated unit tests, and compiler messages are huge gains for productivity.

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Cool, thank you. Might tackle Rust next year then.

This year I'm getting into OCaml. 😊

[–] syklemil@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

OCaml should transfer pretty well to Rust. Rust can feel like an ML dressed up in C's braces.

Similarly, if you can write in Haskell without having to reach for IO, then you can probably satisfy Rust's borrow checker with no more effort.

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Thanks for that insight. I did some small delving into Haskell years ago, but I found the tooling to be so awkward, and "monads" so confusing and poorly explained everywhere, that I eventually gave up trying to learn more.

But OCaml seems pretty nice. Familiar, but with hopefully better tooling. 🤞