• JackbyDev@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Is rust low level? Genuine question, not trying to start an argument. I guess I sort of view it as low level but with a high level compiler lmao.

    • CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Is rust low level?

      Yes, more or less. It’s generally considered a “systems” programming language. But you can really use it for anything you want

    • pewpew@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Rust is very popular because is as low level as C but has memory safety features builtin, so it is considered the best of both worlds. So basically what you said is correct.

      (Disclaimer: I am not a Rust programmer, I prefer C/C++)

      • JackbyDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        16 hours ago

        I guess in my mind I just associate raw pointers with low level. But I guess Rust lets you do that with unsafe blocks still?

        • calcopiritus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          12 hours ago

          Low level goes way beyond raw pointers. But yes, rust does have raw pointers.

          Java does have raw pointers too I believe though. I wouldn’t call it low level.

          But low level is not well defined. At some point, the difference between low level and high level used to be whether you had to write a different program for each computer architecture. Under that definition, C is a high level language. Assembly (and very old languages) would be low level.

          My own definition of low level is: if you have to care at all about memory management, it’s low level.

          Basically, if the language has a garbage collector or if it automatically counts references without you explicitly telling it so, it’s a high level language for me.