|
|
|
|
|
|
by wheelerof4te
1512 days ago
|
|
|
People will bash anything new that might spoil their favorite language's success. So far, not many languages measured up to C. Hare just might, with it's right amount of simplicity and C's footguns gone. So it's small surprise to see The Rust's Evangelist Strike Force in action on these threads about Hare. |
|
|
A huge potion of the criticism at this point towards Hare has been summed into three points: no ‘generics’, no memory safety, and small stdlib combined with no package management.
But, I can imagine that if Hare had generics using template metaprogramming then people would complain about how language design has shown that templates are not good enough, so it needs to be not just a way to have compile time type specialization of data structure, but enable ad hoc polymorphism as well and of course that needs traits or typeclasses.
Further, if Hare used testing and fuzzing and modeling, then claimed to be within the bounds of some error percentage ‘safe’ from leaks, use-after and double free, out of memory conditions; the counter claim would be that you can not be safe, for ANY usage of the word unless you have ownership and borrow checking.
And finally, without a centralized, language committee backed and certified web based way to store and access libraries Hare will never be able to make usable and fit for purpose software, so a package manager is a must have to be worth even considering.
All that said, I don’t think it is exclusively users/promoters of Rust that are complaining/disparaging Hare’s very existence. But it certainly seems like many, many people seem to be convinced that their use case/product goals/preferences are the only considerations for any individual of group making engineering decisions.