4 ms·
> wrestling match with the compiler I went through a similar experience in Haskell. It is worth going through until you get to the point where it is no longer
by bbcbasic 10y ago
> wrestling match with the compiler
I went through a similar experience in Haskell. It is worth going through until you get to the point where it is no longer a wrestling match, because then you are just as productive but any code you write is checked much more thoroughly than in a more weakly typed language.
> Fuck. This. Noise. I'm not learning a language where every project requires a separate compiler.
I guess just wait until it stabilises then.
- serge2k 10y ago> I guess just wait until it stabilises then. Which is when? 1.15? 1.50? 2.0? What was the point of that whole "1.0" thing?
- bbcbasic 10y agoTouche! I remember a place where I worked where the first version was 3 because they figured customers wouldn't trust a version 1. I guess these guys went for version deflation.
- ehsanu1 10y agoIt's right now, with 1.0. Just don't use libraries that require nightly. Libraries are not the language. The language is stable. If your requirement is stability, then use the stable version of rust with stable libraries. That's what I do.
- eropple 10y agoAre you unfamiliar with semver and the promises it makes? This is a rhetorical question, as there's no way you've been around here so long without knowing what it is. For everyone else, however, the notion is that code written for 1.0 will continue to work for additional 1.x releases. It says nothing about iterating on not-yet-baked features--that's what nightly is for, and as they become baked they become part of 1.x releases. They're not breaking backwards compatibility; the major version remains the major version.