When comparing Idris vs Rust, the Slant community recommends Rust for most people. In the question“What are the best (productivity-enhancing, well-designed, and concise, rather than just popular or time-tested) programming languages?” Rust is ranked 5th while Idris is ranked 29th. The most important reason people chose Rust is:
Since Rust is statically typed, you can catch multiple errors during compile time. This is extremely helpful with debugging, especially compared with dynamically typed languages that may fail silently during runtime.
Specs
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pros
Pro Full dependent types
Idris not only has support for type classes, but is a fully dependently typed language, giving you the full power to statically verify your code.
Pro Domain driven design and type driven development
Because of full dependent types in Idris, the programmer can focus more on modelling the domain with types and waste less time fixing common bugs that the type checker will catch. Dependent types help apply type driven development and a lot of code auto generation, making the compiler and type checker an ally in developing working software instead of just getting in the way.
Pro Catch errors at compile-time
Since Rust is statically typed, you can catch multiple errors during compile time. This is extremely helpful with debugging, especially compared with dynamically typed languages that may fail silently during runtime.
Pro Compiles to machine code allowing for extra efficiency
Rust uses LLVM as a backend, among other things this allows Rust code to compile down to machine languages. This allows developers to write programs that run as efficiently as possible.
Pro Threads without data races
Unique ownership system guarantees a mutable data to be owned and mutated by only one thread at a time, so there's no data race, and this guarantee is checked at compile time statically. Which means easy multi-threading.
Of course, immutable data can be shared among multiple threads freely.
Pro Generics support
You don't have to write same array and dictionary classes hundreds and thousands times for strong type check by compiler.
Pro Built-in concurrency
Rust has built-in support for concurrency.
Pro Supports cross compilation for different architectures
Since Rust 1.8 you can install additional versions of the standard library for different targets using rustup/multirust
.
For example:
$ rustup target add x86_64-unknown-linux-musl
Which then allows for:
$ cargo build --target x86_64-unknown-linux-musl
Pro Makes developers write optimal code
Rust is a modern programming language written around systems. It was designed from the ground up this way. It's language design makes developers write optimal code almost all the time, meaning you don't have to fully know and understand the compiler's source code in order to optimize your program.
Furthermore, Rust does not copy from memory unnecessarily, to give an example: all types move by default and not copy. Even references to types do not copy by default. In other words, setting a reference to another reference destroys the original one unless it's stated otherwise.
Pro Support for macros
When you identify a part of your code which gets repeated often, which you cannot abstract using functions or classes, you can use Rust's built-in Macros.
Pro Official package manager and build tool
Cargo is the official package manager for Rust. It comes with the language and downloads dependencies, compiles packages, and makes and uploads distributable packages
Pro Easy to write understandable code
While not as verbose as Java, it still is much more verbose than languages like Go and Python. This means that the code is very explicit and easy to understand.
Pro Big community
The biggest community contributing to language.
Pro Functional programming
Very easy to create functional with some additional from structure application.
Pro Excellent syntax
Pro Safety
Pro No GC
Pro Low memory usage
Pro Static compiled & statically linked single file output
Pro Extremely fast code execution
Pro Zero-cost futures or Async IO
Cons
Con Not widely used
Con Not widely used
Con Weaker type inference
As type inference is undecidable for dependently-typed languages, Idris cannot offer the full type inference that Haskell supports, and so more type annotations will be needed.
Con Different semantics from Haskell
Idris, while similar to Haskell, has strict semantics, which may cause some confusion if your backend is done in Haskell. If using Idris, it would make sense to do the backend in Idris as well, if not for the fact that Idris currently has fewer libraries available for web development than Haskell.
Con Long compile times
Way longer to compile than other languages.
Con Low productivity
The compiler is strict, such as ownership and borrowing checkers.
Con Low readability
Harder to read and understand language.
Con Very ugly and verbose syntax
Compared to many languages. One tool needed to be productive is the language to be pleasing and effective, yet Rust friction is as high as its safety.
Con Steep learning curve
Pretty strict and hard to adapt for beginners.
Con Not as useful or productive as advertised.
If really out here wanting to use something besides C/C++, in 98% of use cases, would do just as well or be better off using something other than Rust. Will complete the project faster, would be easier, will be happier, and nearly as safe (use newer language with optional GC).
Con Rust not as safe as it pretends to be
Rust problems:
1) Massive undisclosed usage of unsafe.
2) Massive amounts of memory safety CVEs - see details.
3) Large bloated Rust binaries increase attack surface for exploits.
4) Many corporate types claiming Rust is safe, don't actually program or use it (have some quiet financial interest to push it).
Con Significant time required to understand the language fully
There's the infamous borrow checker for example.
Con Low-level programming language
This means that it encourages the programmer to be very careful in terms of how memory is allocated, etc.
Most applications can run without exceeding the capacity of the server, even with an inefficient dynamic scripting language.