3 ms·
I think the conflict here is that, for the "non-IDE" programmer, Rust's tooling is best-of-class (IMO). If your idea of an ideal programming environment is runn
by untothebreach 11y ago
I think the conflict here is that, for the "non-IDE" programmer, Rust's tooling is best-of-class (IMO). If your idea of an ideal programming environment is running vim/emacs/sublime/atom and maybe a terminal, Rust's tooling is great.
However, some programmers like an IDE more. Which is fine, but for this type of programmer, Rust still has a long way to go. There are some immature plugins for existing IDEs, and even a couple "rust-specific" IDE projects, but nothing near what (say) Java or C# have.
- tatterdemalion 11y agoAs a vim user I can attest to this. Rust tooling is better for me than any other language I have ever used. Only thing I ever wish for is a REPL, which is a big ask for a language like Rust.
- indiv0 11y agoWhile it's not official, rusti[1] by murarth is a functioning Rust REPL. IIRC, it's used to drive the Rust Playground[2] (don't quote me on that). [1]: https://github.com/murarth/rusti https://github.com/murarth/rusti [2]: https://play.rust-lang.org/ https://play.rust-lang.org/
- tatterdemalion 11y agoRusti isn't 'there yet,' unfortunately. It is forced to recompile the entire project for every line entered. Aa far as I know I also can't do things like set 'breakpoints' that will pause execution and drop me into the REPL, like Ruby's binding.pry. This is a very hard feature for compiled languages, its just a con of this execution model (which is has a lot of pros).
- kibwen 11y agoI believe the playground is just a well-sandboxed Rust compiler. It doesn't have any of the fancy features of a REPL, such as allowing you to refer to the state of prior runs.