3 ms·

> Rust: Rust sits at an even lower level than D. I really like the higher level ideas and syntax but I absolutely don't want to think about ownership issues. If

> Rust: Rust sits at an even lower level than D. I really like the higher level ideas and syntax but I absolutely don't want to think about ownership issues. If that part of the language were removed Rust would be pretty ideal. But then it wouldn't be Rust. Ownership isn't a “low-level” issue. It arises in every program that manipulates ephemeral resources (like network connections), and you have to reason about it, whether the type checker forces you to or not. > Manually controlling the ownership process is a core part of the language and would be pretty hard to change. It's actually pretty automatic. You only need to implement each destructor once. Using `finally` or `defer` is what is needlessly manual.

commentzorro 10y ago
I don't remember thinking about who owns a chunk of memory in, for example, C# or Java but I could be wrong and have just internalized it. Rust, based on my limited experience, seems to impose this mental burden continuously. For higher level business apps this explicit cognitive trait is not a wanted part of the solution. For lower level apps this explicitness might be desirable or may even be critical to a secure solution if the Rustaceans are right. Ideally I'd like the compiler and compiler syntax to fade away as much as possible while coding my applications. Only the domain syntax should remain: the syntax that allows me to turn my thoughts into working code free of any distractions to satisfy the compiler, error handling, etc.
- catnaroek 10y ago
  > I don't remember thinking about who owns a chunk of memory in, for example, C# or Java but I could be wrong and have just internalized it. I wasn't talking about memory management, for which garbage collection is indeed an adequate solution. I'm talking about other resources, which aren't as plentiful as memory (e.g., file descriptors) and thus must be reclaimed in an eager and deterministic fashion.

commentzorro 10y ago

I don't remember thinking about who owns a chunk of memory in, for example, C# or Java but I could be wrong and have just internalized it. Rust, based on my limited experience, seems to impose this mental burden continuously. For higher level business apps this explicit cognitive trait is not a wanted part of the solution. For lower level apps this explicitness might be desirable or may even be critical to a secure solution if the Rustaceans are right. Ideally I'd like the compiler and compiler syntax to fade away as much as possible while coding my applications. Only the domain syntax should remain: the syntax that allows me to turn my thoughts into working code free of any distractions to satisfy the compiler, error handling, etc.

catnaroek 10y ago
> I don't remember thinking about who owns a chunk of memory in, for example, C# or Java but I could be wrong and have just internalized it. I wasn't talking about memory management, for which garbage collection is indeed an adequate solution. I'm talking about other resources, which aren't as plentiful as memory (e.g., file descriptors) and thus must be reclaimed in an eager and deterministic fashion.