@mcc Yeah, that's actually the case. But Rust doesn't have to be better here because most of the languages that ARE good about "here's what happens in your hardware" are niche as fuck, so there's no real pressure/competition on C, Rust, C++, etc. to actually provide materially better guarantees about what goes on in the hardware.
So it has sort of stagnated over the last 30 years. Unfortunately.
@mcc I'll probably never stop using C, but I'm convinced that most of today's software engineering challenges can be explained by the fact that the PDP-11 was basically a stack of squirrels in a trench-coat trying to do math on an Etch-a-Sketch.
This is before we get into the issue, which people in language design seem to call out frequently, that the "metal" C is "close to" is in fact a 1970s PDP-11, which the computer you will be running your actual C on differs from in several important ways
The power of Rust is not that it is "close to the metal" but rather that it is close to the compiler backend. Rust doesn't attempt to make you frame your code in a way that the hardware will execute well, but rather to frame it in a way that the LLVM optimizer will optimize well. This is the correct decision since your C code after all will be processed through that same optimizer before it touches anything resembling metal
I'm sure I'm not the only EU citizen wishing all Americans who are out on the streets today a better future. Fighting for not just your own democracy but for all of the rest of us too.
Thank you.
Stay safe!
@kate you know some enterprising Italian is figuring out how to export directly from San Marino to the US
Trans woman, bisexual, someone's fiancée, forever a programmer, poly, and former total mess