In case you’re still interested in this type of resource, here’s another one I just learned about: https://google.github.io/comprehensive-rust/

It’s by the Android team at Google, and while it doesn’t require knowledge of C++, it seems to be intended to bring devs up to speed on the concepts required for using Rust in Android and Chromium.

Wow, I definitely should have google that myself before asking, but thank you for explaining and calling out that data point.

I honestly think that shows that it was in fact a bad idea to assign TLDs to countries. Having a country code acronym with a popular tech meaning is essentially just luck of the draw, so they’ve basically just arbitrarily given a few small countries a valuable resource to sell. I guess that benefits those countries, but I doubt “quasi-random fundraising for small countries” was ever the intent.

But do they actually have autonomy, give that random companies can use .io and .ai? Or did the British Indian Ocean Territory and Anguilla approve all such uses of those domains?

Why top-level, though? Why not amazon.in.com?

Obviously this isn’t specific to Rust, but frankly it’s bizarre to me that ICANN chose to tie top-level domains to country codes in the first place. Languages might have made sense, but a major feature of the internet is that it’s less beholden to political boundaries than most of the physical world is.

But “drop-in replacement”? That’s a strong and specific claim.

I do actually think that WebAssembly will enable something - maybe Rust, but more likely something simpler - to eventually dethrone JS in the browser. I also do think it seems beneficial to have your client and backend in the same language.

… the issue I have is people lying and saying Rust is a drop in replacement for js

I am genuinely curious whether you’ve actually seen this claim before, or if you badly misunderstood or are simply exaggerating a claim about Rust being a good language for web servers, or if you simply made this up as a straw-man. I can’t imagine anyone who knows what they’re talking about using those words I that order.

The O’Reilly book Programming Rust is very much targeted at C++ users, even if it isn’t explicitly marketed that way.

I read the first edition, which predated async Rust, so I can’t comment on how the second edition handles that topic. But the handling of everything else was, I think, excellent.

I’m no expert, but isn’t running in a VM strictly better than running on raw metal from a security perspective? It’s generally more locked down, and breaking out of the virtualization layer requires a separate security breach from gaining access to the running container.

I don’t know, but I also don’t know how much you think is “enough” to deal with project cultural issues. It sounds like it must be quite a bit?

See also Asahi Lina’s thread on this, which explicitly says that Rust is one reason why their drivers cause fewer kernel panics than others: https://vt.social/@lina/113045456734886438

Isn’t your objection there basically “LF doesn’t pay enough for people to put up with negative social dynamics”? In which case, wouldn’t paying more help a lot?

I asked, and it’s to replace some of the bits that require Perl: https://hachyderm.io/@notgull/113035157972265244

You can see the full (current) sequence here: https://bootstrapping.miraheze.org/wiki/Live-bootstrap

That’s the mrustc project the author mentions. He wants Rust to be bootstrapped earlier in the process.

Okay. That’s just imposing a different (and at least equally arbitrary, if not moreso) definition of bootstrapping. Why does it matter that the author didn’t explain their “deeper reasoning” for having an interest in bootstrapping, or the Bootstrappable Builds project specifically? If you feel like that project isn’t meeting a sufficient bar for what counts as “bootstrapping”, or that using C as the first high-level language they bootstrap is “tragic”, take it up with that project, I guess.

The author doesn’t explain exactly what their interest in bootstrapping is, but the goal is pretty explicit:

So, for me, it would be really nice if there was a Rust compiler that could be bootstrapped from C. Specifically, a Rust compiler that can be bootstrapped from TinyCC, while assuming that there are no tools on the system yet that could be potentially useful.

There is nothing special about C.

I wish that were true, but isn’t it somewhat wishful thinking? Even an assembly-language Lisp would require an operating system in order to build a functioning compiler, wouldn’t it? And operating system APIs are in C.

Edit: more importantly, as the post explains, the special thing about C is the existence of TinyCC.

The phrasing “available on servers” does seem quite weird. It does seem that having a single, standalone binary is much easier with Rust than with C++, though.

Oh, right, yes; of course it statically links the standard library. I was thinking of the fact that the standard lib is precompiled, but yes, it’s statically linked.

There is nothing specific in the rust port that makes fish more available for servers or LTS distros.

Being written in Rust does improve availability, because by default Rust statically links against everything except libc, and you can opt out of that if necessary. So there is inherently no need to build separate dependency packages for each distro, unless you use a Rust crate that specifically links to a C or C++ library.