4 ms·
Personally I find D a much more comfortable option. I tried Rust a few times, and it contains a few nice features ('match', expressional if-else, built-in tuple
by unsignedqword 10y ago
Personally I find D a much more comfortable option. I tried Rust a few times, and it contains a few nice features ('match', expressional if-else, built-in tuples/multiple return) which would be cool to see in something like D, but I found the overt emphasis in Rust on safety to be entirely too aggravating to work with. Perhaps I might try it again in the future, though, who knows.
To any Rust pros here, I'm curious: how long did it take for you to really get to grips with the language, coming from say, a C/C++ background?
- bjz_ 10y agoOnce you internalise the rules, it clicks and becomes second nature, and you learn to really appreciate the explicitness. Lifetime/ownership errors go way down, and the ones you do get are usually trivial to fix. In saying that, as with any powerful type system there are always going to become some confounding cases, but for me the trade-off is worth it. It also makes the complexity of your domain more evident up front with shifts experimentation to the compile time phase as opposed to the run-time phase. I prefer the former though, because it is always a joy to have your code compile after a big refactor, and have it run pretty much as you expect.