Its cross-platform support (not just for using but also for building it) is not there yet, and it is quite huge and unstandardized with only one full implementation. I’d agree the last part will change with age, but given the frequent large changes and feature additions I am afraid it will be harder and harder and it is simply too complex and fast-moving for many low-level applications. It is closer to C++ than C in my eyes. I’d be happy seeing it replace C++ though for its memory safety benefits!
That’s true, but they’re working on an ABI implementation. It’s no mean feat with a language like Rust. A quick search around the Internet found various possible candidates, though many of the discussion threads have petered out.
Rust actually doesn’t have a garbage collector! The point of Rust is that memory safety is statically verified at compile time, automatically inserting allocations and frees. The bloat of Rust binaries in my experience comes from excessive code generation such as generics or macros. If you’re aware of that, though, you can avoid the more bloaty bits (such as the string formatting machinery) and compile some quite tiny binaries. For example, I was able to write a simple GameBoy Advance game that only took 2kb of ROM including the assets.
That said, C still very much has its place, but Rust can definitely do embedded.
I wouldn’t say “need”, but there are possible improvements to ergonomics and safety that wouldn’t make the language itself more complex or high level. I think it does its job quite well though and will be here for decades to come.
I’m not too familiar with C, but I was under the impression that C++ was deceloped as a superset to C, and was capable of everything C could do. Is that not the case?
Every programming language is an abstraction layer between the programmer and the machine that will run the code. But abstraction isn’t free. Generally speaking, the higher the abstraction, the less efficient the program.
C++ optionally provides a much higher level of abstraction than pure C, which makes C++ much nicer to work with. But the trade off is that the program will struggle to run in resource constrained environments, where a program written in C would run just fine.
And to be clear, when I say “low-end hardware”, I’m not talking about the atom-based netbook from 2008 you picked up for $15 at a yard sale. It will run C++ based programs just fine. I’m talking about 8- or 16-bit microcontrollers running at <100 MHz with a couple of hundred kB of RAM. Such machines are still common in many embedded applications, and they do not handle C++ applications gracefully.
And speed too. A small program using only C features can compile 5x faster with a c compiler then a c++ one. (GCC will use c++ mode on a .cop file so make sure it is .c)
Ada has been around since 1983 and is objectively superior. Yes I will die on that hill.
It’s too bad programmers are all such egotards they think they can write bugfree programs in C, while whining about how “restrictive” a safe language like Ada is.
C is the sniper you don’t see
And just like in Metal Gear, he dies of old age if you wait a bit.
C is old, ubiquitous and still does not have a good replacement for its low-level cross-platform usecases, so I’ll believe it when I see it 😄
Rust is doing a very decent job of low-level cross platform. C just has a very long history.
Its cross-platform support (not just for using but also for building it) is not there yet, and it is quite huge and unstandardized with only one full implementation. I’d agree the last part will change with age, but given the frequent large changes and feature additions I am afraid it will be harder and harder and it is simply too complex and fast-moving for many low-level applications. It is closer to C++ than C in my eyes. I’d be happy seeing it replace C++ though for its memory safety benefits!
At the same time, C is the only stable ABI available for Rust.
That’s true, but they’re working on an ABI implementation. It’s no mean feat with a language like Rust. A quick search around the Internet found various possible candidates, though many of the discussion threads have petered out.
Rust won’t replace c.
The programs are too bloated for many embedded systems where every byte counts because it’s in ROM or loaded jnto IRAM
All that memory safety and garbage collection, for example, comes at a big cost
Rust actually doesn’t have a garbage collector! The point of Rust is that memory safety is statically verified at compile time, automatically inserting allocations and frees. The bloat of Rust binaries in my experience comes from excessive code generation such as generics or macros. If you’re aware of that, though, you can avoid the more bloaty bits (such as the string formatting machinery) and compile some quite tiny binaries. For example, I was able to write a simple GameBoy Advance game that only took 2kb of ROM including the assets.
That said, C still very much has its place, but Rust can definitely do embedded.
I don’t think Rust has a garbage collector.
Does it need replacing?
I wouldn’t say “need”, but there are possible improvements to ergonomics and safety that wouldn’t make the language itself more complex or high level. I think it does its job quite well though and will be here for decades to come.
I’m not too familiar with C, but I was under the impression that C++ was deceloped as a superset to C, and was capable of everything C could do. Is that not the case?
I mean yeah, if you restrict yourself to the C part of C++ it can do everything C can. But then you’re not getting any of the advantages of C++.
Once you start using things like classes and templates heavily, your program will quickly outgrow low-end hardware.
“Outgrow low-end hardware”?
What does a programming language have to do with this?
Everything.
Every programming language is an abstraction layer between the programmer and the machine that will run the code. But abstraction isn’t free. Generally speaking, the higher the abstraction, the less efficient the program.
C++ optionally provides a much higher level of abstraction than pure C, which makes C++ much nicer to work with. But the trade off is that the program will struggle to run in resource constrained environments, where a program written in C would run just fine.
And to be clear, when I say “low-end hardware”, I’m not talking about the atom-based netbook from 2008 you picked up for $15 at a yard sale. It will run C++ based programs just fine. I’m talking about 8- or 16-bit microcontrollers running at <100 MHz with a couple of hundred kB of RAM. Such machines are still common in many embedded applications, and they do not handle C++ applications gracefully.
Compile times get insanely huge.
Compile a c program with gcc then with g++.
You will quickly see the difference in size
And speed too. A small program using only C features can compile 5x faster with a c compiler then a c++ one. (GCC will use c++ mode on a .cop file so make sure it is .c)
Ada has been around since 1983 and is objectively superior. Yes I will die on that hill.
It’s too bad programmers are all such egotards they think they can write bugfree programs in C, while whining about how “restrictive” a safe language like Ada is.
C is back at HQ with 2 Stars and enough political capital to serve till they die.
deleted by creator