Comparing C and Rust Network Protocol Exercises
The classic old school vs. new school debate, one dev compares these two popular low-level coding languages.
Join the DZone community and get the full member experience.Join For Free
Almost by accident, it turned out that I implemented a pretty simple, but non-trivial task in both C and Rust and blogged about them.
Now that I'm done with both of them, I thought it would be interesting to talk about the differences in the experiences.
The Rust version clocks at exactly 400 lines of code and uses 12 external crates.
The C version has 911 lines of C code and another 140 lines in headers and depends on libuv and OpenSSL.
Both took about two weeks of evenings of me playing around. If I was working full time on that, I could probably do that in a couple of days (but probably more, to be honest).
The C version was very straightforward. The C language is pretty much not there, and, on the one hand, it didn't get in my way at all. On the other hand, you are left pretty much on your own. I had to write my own error handling code to be sure that I got good errors, for example. I had to copy some string processing routines that aren't available in the standard library, and I had to always be sure that I'm releasing resources properly. Adding dependencies is something that you do carefully because it is so painful.
The Rust version, on the other hand, uses the default error handling that Rust has (and much improved since the last time I tried it). I'm pretty sure that I'm getting worse error messages than the C version I used, but that is good enough to get by, so that is fine. I had to do no resource handling. All of that is already handled for me, and that was something that I didn't even consider until I started doing this comparison.
When writing the C version, I spent a lot of time thinking about the structure of the code, debugging through it (to understand what is going on, since I also learned how OpenSSL works) and seeing if things worked. Writing the code and compiling it were both things that I spent very little time on.
In comparison, the Rust version (although benefiting from the fact that I did it second, so I already knew what I needed to do) made me spend a lot more time on just writing code and getting it to compile. In both cases, I decided that I wanted this to be a production worthy code, which meant handling all errors, producing good errors, etc. In C, that was simply a tax that needed to be dealt with. With Rust, that was a lot of extra work.
The syntax and language really make it obvious that you want to do that, but in most of the Rust code that I reviewed, there are a lot of
unwrap()calls, because trying to handle all errors is too much of a burden. When you aren't doing that, your code size balloons, but the complexity of the code didn't, which was a great thing to see.
What was really annoying is that in C, if I got a compiler error, I knew exactly what the problem was, and errors were very localized. In Rust, a compiler error could stymie me for hours, just trying to figure out what I needed to do to move forward. Note that the situation is much better than it used to be, because I eventually managed to get there, but it took a lot of time and effort, and I don't think that I was trying to explore any dark corners of the language.
What really sucked is that Rust, by its nature, does a lot of type inferencing for you. This is great, but this type inferencing goes both backward and forward. So if you have a function and you create a variable using
HashMap::new(), the actual type of the variable depends on the parameters that you pass to the first usage of this instance. That sounds great, and for the first few times, it looked amazing. The problem is that when you have errors, they compound. A mistake in one location means that Rust has no information about other parts of your code, so it generates errors about that. It was pretty common to make a change, run cargo checks, and see three of four screen's worth of errors pass by, and then go into a "let's fix the next compiler error" for a while.
The type inferencing bit also comes into play when you write the code because you don't have the types in front of you (and because Rust loves composing types), thus it can be really hard to understand what a particular method will return.
C's lack of async/await meant that when I wanted to do async operations, I had to decompose that to event loop mode. In Rust, I ended up using tokio, but I think that was a mistake. I should have used the event loop model there as well. It isn't as nice, in terms of the code readability, but the fact that Rust doesn't have proper async/await meant that I had a lot more additional complexity to deal with and that nearly caused me to give up on the whole thing.
I do want to mention that for C, I had run Valgrind a few times to get memory leaks and invalid memory accesses (it found a few, even when I was extra careful). In Rust, the compiler was very strict and several times complained about stuff that, if allowed, would have caused problems. I did like that, but most of the time, it felt like fighting the compiler.
Speaking of which, the compilation times for Rust felt really high. Even with 400 lines of code, it can take a couple of seconds to compile (with cargo checks, mind you, not a full build). I do wonder what it will do with a project of significant size.
I gotta say, though, compiling the C code meant that I would have to test the code. Compiling the Rust code meant that I could run things and they usually worked. That was nice, but at the same time, getting the thing to compile at all was a major chore many times. Even with the C code not working properly, the feedback loop was much shorter with C than with Rust. And some part of that was that I already had a working implementation for most of what I needed, so I had a lot less need to explore when I wrote the Rust code.
I don't have any hard conclusions from the experience, I like the simplicity of C, and if I had something like Go's defer to ensure resource disposal, that would probably be enough (I'm aware of libdefer and friends). I find the Rust code elegant (except the async stuff) and the standard library is great. The fact that the crates system is there means that I have very rich access to additional libraries and that this is easy to do. However, Rust is full of ceremony that sometimes seems really annoying. You have to use cargo.toml and extern crate, for example.
There is a lot more to be done to make the compiler happy. And while it does catch you sometimes doing something you shouldn't, I found that it usually felt like busy work more than anything else. In some ways, it feels like Rust is trying to do too much. I would have liked to see something less ambitious. Just focusing on one or two concepts, instead of trying to be both a high and low-level language, type inference set to the make, borrow checker and memory safety, etc. It feels like this is a very high bar to cross, and I haven't seen that the benefits are clearly on the plus side here.
Published at DZone with permission of Oren Eini, DZone MVB. See the original article here.
Opinions expressed by DZone contributors are their own.