The Rust team is happy to announce a new version of Rust, 1.24.0. Rust is a systems programming language focused on safety, speed, and concurrency. This release contains two very exciting new features: rustfmt and incremental compilation! For years now, we’ve wanted a tool that automatically can reformat your Rust code to some sort of “standard style.” With this release, we’re happy to announce that a preview of rustfmt can be used with 1.24 stable.
Back in September of 2016 (!!!), we blogged about Incremental Compilation. While that post goes into the details, the idea is basically this: when you’re working on a project, you often compile it, then change something small, then compile again. Historically, the compiler has compiled your entire project, no matter how little you’ve changed the code. The idea with incremental compilation is that you only need to compile the code you’ve actually changed, which means that that second build is faster.
As of Rust 1.24, this is now turned on by default. This means that your builds should get faster! Don’t forget about cargo check when trying to get the lowest possible build times.
This is still not the end story for compiler performance generally, nor incremental compilation specifically. We have a lot more work planned in the future. For example, another change related to performance hit stable this release: codegen-units is now set to 16 by default. One small note about this change: it makes builds faster, but makes the final binary a bit slower. For maximum speed, setting codegen-units to 1 in your Cargo.toml is needed to eke out every last drop of performance.
Rust is and always was safe. It is rustc, the compiler, which has bugs that allow memory unsafety. But they will be fixed soon. The reason why those bugs existed so long is that the Rust developers decided to rewrite parts of the compiler. These rewrites will bring yuge improvements. You can test some of it in nightly Rust btw.
I'm unironically curious and want to learn rust in my free time. What's the best place to start ?
This, please don't present this rat-man as the face of the language when all he is is a verbal parasite.
But I AM the face of Rust. Everyone knows. Someone mentions Rust? I'm there instantly. I have multiple web crawlers that scavenge the interwebs for mentions of Rust/my name (written in Rust btw). I will be the Jon Skeet of the Rust world and you can't do anything about it.
Steve is willing (for other people) to fight to preserve his supply of third world dick
uh i'll just keep using c thanks
Off-by-one error redirects insult back at you C queer.
These commie leftists (using computes and other devices of capitalism) are such cocksucking faggots. Hopefully Steve gets some documentation work done before being beat to death by the niggers he attempts to rile up.
C is for cuck nigger.
what the fuck guys? 99% of these posts are >>>/b/ tier bullshit can we actually talk about the tech instead of shitposting?
If you've been here for more than a week, you know that that we're inundated with pointless Rust threads to an extent where there isn't much to say anymore. It's partly their own fault, for allowing the technicals of their language to be lost amidst the worthless SJW talking points espoused by a vocal section of their community.
thats just about every community in the normie world tho, i mean my opinion of it is meh, but it would be nice to see that shit ignored and have some decent tech talk on this tech board...
That would be the dream. Politics is not technology.
As a successful candidate, you will lead a team of engineers working on Mononoke, identify new use cases that Mononoke unlocks, and be instrumental in open-sourcing Mononoke and helping others across the industry to adopt it. Mononoke is written in Rust, so experience in Rust is desirable. A love of data structures and algorithms is a must. We are looking for someone who loves solving hard problems at scale.
There is no difference between unsafe Zig and Zig. There exists no safe Zig. This clickbait blog post is just the creator of Zig desperately trying to get Zig onto Hackernews/Reddit. Thanks for bumping my thread btw
Because there is no need to create a "safe" subset for a language that is already reasonably safe if the author is not acting maliciously. (and if we count malice, then no language could prevent intentionally malicious code) Similarly as there's no "safe" Python or Java because no one needs that. Unsafe Rust, on the other hand, is a footgun, as it was just demonstrated.
So? This allows you to call shared libraries from Python. That doesn't make Python unsafe. ok kid So still unsafe? Thanks for clarifying. LOL. Are you trying to imply that Zig isn't a stillborn language?
are you trying to imply that a language is only alive if someone is making a shitload of vulnerabilities in it?
No. I'm trying to imply that nobody except for the creator of Zig is using Zig.
And the proofs are …?
ziglang.org/ Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... Really makes my thought noggins jogging...
I want the dylan language to live. ;_;
define class () slot point-x :: , required-init-keyword: x:; slot point-y :: , required-init-keyword: y:;end class ; disgusting
the rust standard library has lots of unsafe blocks. unsafe is idiomatic.
One word that often falls when discussing the Rust community is “nice”. And yes, this is the result of active effort of a number of official and inofficial participants. Today I’m going to compare the Rust community with traffic.
There have been studies that show you need to direcly control only about 5% of cars to eliminate traffic jams (sorry, I’m not going to google the paper, trying to make a point here), and I believe the same applies to assholery in programming communities: If just 5% agree on being nice, they may sway the behavior of the community as a whole.
That is not to say everyone welcomes this kind of control. Imagine being in an almost-jam, trying to weasle through traffic, cutting off people left and right, only to find that a few cars before you, some cars coast, forming a slow-ish barrier you (and perhaps the cars before you) cannot pass. They’re slowing you down! You’d honk in righteous anger! What you don’t (and probably don’t want to) know is that those cars slow down to avoid a traffic jam, by keeping you from creating it.
(As an aside, I find that driving in traffic tends to bring out the worst in us. I’m unsure why that is, but I hear that people behave less well if they feel being in their private space, and most people count their cars in that category)
In a community the coasters being nice have a similar effect on those trying to weasel their way through, shaming and trolling left and right. People being nice offend those who don’t want to be nice themselves, and those people honk “SJW Police! Witch hunt!” in self-righteous fury. Lacking empathy, they think others are only nice to appear better than them, to make them look bad. Why else would someone waste the time and energy? Worse, with the backdrop of all this friendlyness, their weasling attempts suddenly starkly contrast. So they start to resent the “SJWs” on their high horses with their holier-than-you ‘tude.
By defending their “freedom” to bring everyone else to a halt, they’re telling you that them being at their destination five seconds earlier is more valuable than everyone around them not being stuck in traffic for another half an hour. I sincerely doubt the idea that those metaphoric five seconds benefit the community as a whole more than the multitude of half-hours wasted by being stuck.
This is not to say that everyone who blurts “Freedom of Speech” is an asshole. Some were just raised to believe that freedom is the biggest ideal and will reflexively fight everything that appears to curtail it. I personally believe this is misguided. Freedom of Speech is not Guarantee of Audience. I have yet to see any of those people speaking up when someone loud and obnoxious is thrown out of a restaurant – yet by extension of the same logic this should also count as a free speech violation, right?
Anyway, enough of the rambling. The key takeaway is that the argument that a Code of Conduct keeps people from getting things done is completely bogus. On the contrary, it keeps people from keeping other people from getting things done. I’ll leave you here with a verse:
Let’s play a game & surprise folks’round you by being nice Who gets most smiles this way wins this game & the day Now go & apply this advice
you're right about traffic but the analogy is shit and does not apply here.
Perhaps you can explain then: Why all the drama happens in projects which have a CoC, while other projects just werk without drama? If your post was true, it should be the other way round? Or do we live in a wrong universe?
Can you prove that statement though? I can certainly disprove it for you: Libav
CoC doesn't stop anyone from forking and deciding to isolate if the license allows to do so. libav is just a fork, and all the "drama" is because a few people did not agree on some things. (This happens sometimes and it's just how is life.) Not because someone started bitching about diversity and white privilege. The latter always goes with CoC. I have far more examples of that, but I think you already know about them.
I don't understand what you are tring yo say. First you said that only projects with a CoC have drama and now you try to define drama as bitching about diversity and white privilege? Also libav wasn't just a fork. Debian replaced ffmpeg with libav and called ffmpeg deprecated.
only because a "smart" kid from libav happened to be also an admin in Debian&Ubuntu. it was reverted later, fortunately.
if we talk about CoC, it is reasonable to talk about the kind of drama which CoC aims to solve?
So? It still is drama. No. We are not talking about CoCs. We are talking about your claim that drama only happens in projects which have a Coc. Which I have disproven and you can't accept because >muh CoC.
okay, maybe not only, but most of the relatively recent drama in FOSS projects happens in projects with CoC. remember Mozilla, Drupal, github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 (this thread speaks for it all actually) what else, I forgot, a quick search will bring up another couple.
Really makes you think. Perhaps you are the dumb one and everyone should actually believe in antifa because they're right.
New blog post boys: Rust's 2018 roadmap
Rust: 2018 edition This year, we will deliver Rust 2018, marking the first major new edition of Rust since 1.0 (aka Rust 2015). We will continue to publish releases every six weeks as usual. But we will designate a release in the latter third of the year (Rust 1.29 - 1.31) as Rust 2018. This new “edition” of Rust will be the culmination of feature stabilization throughout the year, and will ship with polished documentation, tooling, and libraries that tie in to those features. The idea of editions is to signify major steps in Rust’s evolution, where a collection of new features or idioms, taken as a whole, changes the experience of using Rust. They’re a chance, every few years, to take stock of the work we’ve delivered in six-week increments. To tell a bigger story about where Rust is going. And to ship the whole stack as a polished product. We expect that each edition will have a core theme or focus. Thinking of 1.0 as “Rust 2015”, we have: * Rust 2015: stability * Rust 2018: productivity
What will be in Rust 2018? The roadmap doesn’t say for certain what will ship in Rust 2018, but we have a pretty good idea, and we’ll cover the major suspects below. Documentation improvements Part of the goal with the Rust 2018 release is to provide high quality documentation for the full set of new and improved features and the idioms they give rise to. The Rust Programming Language book has been completely re-written over the last 18 months, and will be updated throughout the year as features reach the stable compiler. Rust By Example will likewise undergo a revamp this year. And there are numerous third party books, like Programming Rust, reaching print as well. Language improvements The most prominent language work in the pipeline stems from 2017’s ergonomics initiative. Almost all of the accepted RFCs from the initiative are available on nightly today, and will be polished and stabilized over the next several months. Among these productivity improvements are a few “headliners” that will form the backbone of the release: * Ownership system improvements, including making borrowing more flexible via “non-lexical lifetimes”, improved pattern matching integration, and more. * Trait system improvements, including the long-awaited impl Trait syntax for dealing with types abstractly. * Module system improvements, focused on increasing clarity and reducing complexity. * Generators/async/await: work is rapidly progressing on first-class async programming support.
In addition, we anticipate a few more major features to stabilize prior to the Rust 2018 release, including SIMD, custom allocators, and macros 2.0.
Can you tell me when C/C++ got standardized? Kill yourself anti Rust shill
Are you retarded? What are C89, C99 and C11?
Are you retarded? Now please calculate how long after C's development it got standardized. Then look up how old Rust is. Then kill yourself, anti Rust shill. Also please tell me why having a standard is important?
C was made only for themselves at the beginning. Rust wasn't. Learning or even making a 3rd party compiler for an always moving target is a pain. Especially since the stdlib itself isn't standardized I hope they'll cut that nodejs style of "everything must be an out of tree module".
Are you trying to imply that Steve Klabnik is trying to imply that the Rust developers invented incremental compilation? Because from what I understand Steve only wrote that in September 2016 he wrote a blog post about incremental compilation. Can you please quote the specific part where you believe Steve claimed that the Rust developers invented incremental compilation?
I hate these versioning schemes that do nothing but indicate that some time has passed, you could get that information anyway. Version numbers have no meaning anymore.
They tell the compiler which words it should consider as keywords. Just because you are an autist and don't like this particular versioning scheme doesn't mean that it's shit. Also use actual arguments next time.