rust vs c++ #codingstr
Discussion
Coz Rust pack everything inside it's binary and canbe run everywhere while C depend on the specified system linked lib
Until your OS ships /usr/rlib with .rlib files, all the rust dependencies have to be packed into the binary.
Nice thing is, however, if you don't link to any C code the binary doesn't depend on your system libraries and survives distribution upgrades since linux doesn't break userspace and the binary talks directly to linux. [this is not true of gossip which links to C libraries]
I got this wrong about .rlib. `cdylib` creates system libraries already (.so, .dylib, or .dll). System-shipped libraries are always the wrong version though. This is what I was talking about here: nostr:nevent1qqsdxvs2yrzumr2r48mzlk2eljmjwx39h06rzwu48x3du025du3rxycpypmhxue69uhkx6r0wf6hxtndd94k2erfd3nk2u3wvdhk6w35xs6z7qgswaehxw309ajjumn0wvhxcmmv9uqsuamnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dshsuqznvm
linux embedded devices - even few KB space matters maybe
You can even make the hello world much, much smaller:
Isn't rust preferred because it's memory safe? Not a coder but I feel like some additional context is needed no?
I'm curious how an abstracted language like python would fair
But you can sleep better at night