[ncmncm]

They are "obligate-GC" languages. You don't get a choice whether to rely on it.

It is fundamentally misleading to call C++ or Rust "lower-level" languages than Go or Java. (As it is, also, to say "C/C++".) Both Rust and C++ support much more powerful abstractions than either, making them markedly higher-level. That they also enable actually coding abstractions to manage resources (incidentally including memory resources) reduces neither their expressiveness nor the productivity of skilled programmers.

The point of Java and Go is that less-skilled programmers can use them to solve simpler problems more cheaply. Since most problems are simple, those languages have a secure place.

[jolux]

High-level and low-level are ill-defined and I prefer to stick to more precise language. Additionally, calling Rust high-level is inaccurate. It has high-level features, but the linear typing used by the borrowing system ultimately imposes cognitive overhead that does not exist in, say, OCaml. I think it’s also interesting to note that garbage collectors for Rust that function reasonably are still pretty experimental, with the most promising approach I’ve seen so far being withoutboats’s Shifgrethor (https://github.com/withoutboats/shifgrethor).

Haskell and Idris and the like (other languages with a type system in the calculus of constructions) inarguably support a higher level of abstraction than Rust does, and are also “GC-obligate” languages. So your example is something of a red herring. I could say the same about Kotlin and Swift and Scala, none of which really have a strong story for static memory safety like Rust has, though it’s being considered for Swift. The only language that is reasonably complete that I could think to compare it to is ATS, which is far more complex as a result.

[zozbot234]

> garbage collectors for Rust that function reasonably are still pretty experimental

You can also use something like https://github.com/artichoke/cactusref - which provides an equivalent of Rc<T> with nearly-seamless, timely detection and collection of deallocation cycles. This gives you the equivalent of full GC, but using a "zero-overhead" approach that integrates more cleanly with how Rust idiomatically works.

[pjmlp]

Does it prevent stack overflows and stop-the-world delays in complex data structures?

Two common problems in most reference counting implementations.

[jashmatthews]

IIUC Rust stack overflows are actually checked, hit a guard page, and unwind the stack https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-builtins/blob/master/s...

A cactusref is owned by a single thread so there's no STW issue, but you also can't share them mutably between threads like structures available in some GCed languages.

[pjmlp]

Thanks

[tracker1]

Lower-level meaning closer to the metal. Higher level would be further from the hardware, more abstracted. And in this context, it's more about the relativity to each other.

I wouldn't suggest that a given language favors more or less skilled programmers. There are plenty of skilled programmers that will choose a given language simply for the time to get things done. Not every problem needs absolute performance and memory scarcity, in fact I would suggest that most don't.

I've used some very low level languages as well as a bit of assembly in the past. All the same, JavaScript is the language I enjoy the most, simply because I can get things done in flexible ways, with many modules already written. There are times where you want absolute performance with minimal memory (embedded systems in particular, though even they're getting pretty powerful) and there are others where you can duct tape something together that only needs to run a couple times a day.

I've seen front end developers that couldn't handle conceptualizing SQL-style data storage... Likewise, I've seen backend developers unable to deal with breaking apart UI components or dealing with event based workflows or managing state outside a database context. I've seen systems developers create the most byzantine, overly complex and buggy systems you can imagine, that don't even work half the time. On the flip side, I've seen aircraft systems designed and built almost entirely in hardware... now some of that is truly impressive (and took years to design and develop, compared to weeks/months many developers will get).

Closer to when I was starting out, it was Visual Basic that was considered the proverbial whipping boy of "beginner" or "less skilled" languages. I've seen very good, and very bad implementations of a great many things in a great many languages over the past few decades. I'd say some of the worst of the worst code I've dealt with has come from the most arrogant people I've worked with. Generally, you aren't as smart or clever as you think you are. And I mean "you" in the colloquial sense. In the end, all anyone (or at least most people/users) really care about is it does the job, and is relatively easy to use.