Видео

Go look at the TIOBE index, C and C++ have been in the top 1,2,3,4 positions basically forever. Rust is currently 14 but getting more popular as it becomes the in-vogue language to be using at this moment in time. Most large specialised projects will implement their own bespoke data structures to suit their use cases and are nearly always faster than the containers in the std library. The C++ standard does not specify the underlying data structures to be used but does specify various criteria which they must meet. Hence implementors can use whatever they like. I started writing device drivers in assembler. I then moved to assembler/C as C was the "high level assembler" and less error prone. Then C++ arrived and everybody jumped on the band wagon as to how it was going to solve all the problems with C. (It didnt, it just created new ones). Then Java arrived and everybody jumped on the band wagon as to how it was going to solve all the problems with C++ (it didnt, it just created more). Then Go arrived and to date hasnt really shone yet. Now we have Rust and everybody jumped on the band wagon as to how it was going to fix all the problems the C++, and C, and basically the whole world). It hasnt, and it wont and it will just have its own set of issues if and when it gets established. And I imagine in a couple of years we might have Zig getting more popular. I program in C and C++ for over 40 years, and I have never ever had any problems with the language or memory issues, sure everybody has bugs but these are discovered in testing and removed. C is a lovely language, but C++ has just become a fucking syntatic and semantic mess and getting worse, the C++ committe made up of various industry lobbists just want to add feature on feature on feature and less and less people are even attempting to learn and use it. Designing a language by committe doesnt work, and Rust is starting to have that problem as well. Nothing gets close to C to being a lovely language to program at the hardware level. I stopped watching this video, its a complete wate of my life.

It would be interesting to benchmark the performance of C++ Boost in the same manner

Most Rust implementations suck

after watching this video I am quite certain I will not be moving to Rust.

dude placed cobol near to c/c++ in popularity ☠☠☠

i love rust

dude made one video and then ditched, shame

Such an excellent summary of what rust brings to the table. Whenever people ask me "Why rust?" I'll send them here.

just use the const keyword???????? these first two examples are so bad im sorry, just another video trying to sell the language

twitter...was completely botted...

Rust is faster than C++ if you don't know how to write good code in C++ Having to check that the location of an array you're accessing isn't out of bounds means bad code (unless the user is involved, the user will find all possible bugs) Even division by zero checks (again, unless the user is involved) means bad code

Unfortunately it looks like you have it backwards. C is the opposite of ambiguous. It is as soundly designed as a language can be in the functional sense since every line of code is explicit. The code you don’t work with is not a compiler issue, it’s a developer one. You are responsible for your code, not the compiler.

Thank you for this info

This is a stupid video. So a single builtin data structure is faster in one language than another. What does this prove? This is like saying a cow runs faster than a cheetah because you saw an adult cow compete against a newborn cheetah.

First upload and that too good quality? Fabulous.

How is that hard? I don't understand why everyone is saying Rust is hard

[𝐄𝐗𝐓𝐑𝐄𝐌𝐄𝐋𝐘 𝐋𝐎𝐔𝐃 𝐈𝐍𝐂𝐎𝐑𝐑𝐄𝐂𝐓 𝐁𝐔𝐙𝐙𝐄𝐑]

rust troons again

If C is slower it's just skill issue. Besides Rust still doesn't have own ABI...

Rust is enforcing the good practices developed in other languages so idiots dont write bad code, and 96 prrcent of people are idiots

so the "rust" compiler created in c / c++. So I think C is more than enough :3

This guy is not an expert, talking for talking

The frist example is weird and bad because it illustrates a user's ineptitude, instead of just focusing on how rust requires a few more keystrokes. Nobody would use clone() before using &borrow. Also, you wouldn't be using "more and more" memory for each clone(), because each cloned variable would drop at the end of the greet() call, you would just be wasting cycles by creating and dropping the same variable. The point still stands, the fact that you need to put a little more effort in but your code is more manageable over the long term, but it's a strangely made point.

Is this a sign for me to learn Rust? What exactly can I do with it?

Your explanation is great. Here is my doubt, I have written a program that has 4 threads between every thread busy waiting on the segment queue. We are creating a packet in one thread and passing via queue to another and processing something in every thread and that packet processed in the last thread and we time stamp at every thread. Total 1million packet processed. We have written a similar program in c++ also. Performance : MACOS: rust : 2.9sec c++ : 2.7sec LINUX rust : 15sec C++ : 3.3sec Why rust is too slow in Linux. Can anybody help me to solve my problem, I have used every compiler optimization of everything, still nothing happens.

No I won't switch to rust.

Terrible and, as usual, deceptive implementation. Do not recommend channel. Thanks!

Does C and C++ have comments? // This comment has zero irony.

With the 1st and 2nd cases the word "biased" immediatly poped up in my mind, how you use silly things to pretend that rust is better. The simple fact you ommit things like references "&" and " the "const" keyword in C++ that not only tell us if the contents of a pointer will be changed but also tell us if the contents of where is pointing too will be changed.

I'm relatively new to Rust but I'd say in this example there is no "real" difference between C or Rust in terms of writing the implementation. The Rust code was easily readable to me, even as a beginner, because I am familiar with the syntax (I was screaming "just pass a reference" like 20 times) because thats what I am used to. And tbh the C code seemed to do the same (char *). The difference likely lies within a lack of dedicated Rust libraries C/ C++ had for decades and being forced to handle Results / Options, Err etc. whereas C will let you do whatever. This will be a negative for short POCs but in large code bases you will implement the exact same things that are standard in Rust anyway

"Rust is more modern than C and C++ thus is able to have faster default implementations of data structures" -> Oh come on. This has nothing to do with Rust being modern/new. There are currently (if I am not mistaken) 3 implementations of the C++ stl (msvc, gcc, clang) The C++ STL usually describes the data structures in general and doesn't force a specific algorithmic implementation for containers. Moreover, you just tested one data structure. Lastly, one can find very good C++ implementations of any data structures one desires if the STL ones don't fit their needs.

C code @3:20 is incorrect. The divide function definition has an integer pointer as first parameter. So when calling the divide function, you pass with & a normal variable not a pointer to the divide function. int a = 20; int return_value = divide(&a, 4); printf("%d ", a);

For Rust i recommend using .to_owned() instead of .to_string(). It's faster but use &str if you can.

because you don't know how to do it because of lack of actual knowledge don't blame it on the language 😂

Outside of the code writing I believe that Rust is great for teamwork because of the config file, the toml I think. Just type in whatever dependencies you need in there and cargo will do it all for you, all the correct pakages, the correct version of Rust you want and then cargo run, kinda like Python venv. So not only does Rust code is explicit and precise, but the way Rust manages itself is just so good, any team member with Rust installed can just take that toml file and run it, and they are set.

U must do that in cpp too

When's the next video my dude? You've got everything here that makes a great channel, what are you currently passionate about? Tell us about it! 😄 (My only feedback, if I may, would be to use a better mic, don't buy one, just use your phone's microphone like I demo in my "how to sound great" video) Looking forward to seeing more!

C is always enough. ;-)

pov strongest rust propaganda (it's weak).

no, is c++ > rust

Simply untrue. Can't wait to see your zero days because rust can be fast or safe; never both :)

U can't just say "when we benchmark" show an actual benchmark and compiler details... I would bet c usually wins if u choose a good hashmap especially if u optimize for ur data distribution

The speed of Rust depends a lot on what your code actually does. I have a small test benchmark that performs fractal calculations, no fancy objects or structures are involved except arrays, and this code runs 10% faster in Rust than in C, who would have expected that? However, if I modify the benchmark to compute many more fractal values that all need to be held in memory, the Rust code is suddenly 20% slower than the C code. Sure, in the end it's all LLVM, but there are certain operations that are faster in LLVM than others, and certain combination patterns cause more code than others (e.g. because of extra checks or more cleanup at the end of a function). Rust is neither guaranteed faster nor guaranteed slower, it all depends on what your code actually does and how your code does it, and how well the compiler can optimize away the things that would otherwise make Rust slower, or how much the compiler can benefit from making assumptions about data or code flow that it can only make in Rust but not in C, where those assumptions end up leading to better CPU code. Since Rust is much more complicated under the hood than C, the final speed will always be a kind of gamble ("Oh, if I change this, my code will be 60% faster... I didn't expect that"), whereas speed in C is predictable most of the time ("It was clear that this will be faster than that"), but that still doesn't mean that C will always end up with the best performance, as C simply provides less meta-information for compilers to work with, so compilers can't always figure out the best optimization path, as they simply have less understanding of what's really going on, or they have to be prepared to deal with exceptional cases, which may be guaranteed not to happen with comparable Rust code. The takeaway is that for a way safer and way better typed language, Rust is often comparable fast, but in most cases it will still be slightly slower, so you are trading a tiny bit of speed for way more safety. My biggest grief with Rust is that I already disliked C++ just because it's syntax is so ugly but the syntax of Rust is even worse.

Rust may be a goid language, but i dont like it. I'll just stay with c

would be nice for the next video to see the performance and productivity comparison that doesn't involve 3rd party libraries

Nice video, looking forward to others like this

2:49 "...we are after all the programmers and we know exactly what we want to be doing..." We do???????

"Segmentation fault (core dumped)" is the message c programmers fear the most

3:40 In bigger coding projects you should always specify function parameters as they are intended to be used. For example making param1 in your div() function a pointer to a constant value. int div(const int *param1, ...) if it is read-only

Interesting video with interesting comments, thanks for the upload.