3 ms·

> I'm starting to feel you're not commenting in good faith here. I'm not going to repeat the same thing over and over. You claim it's not the developers issue

by braveo 10y ago

> I'm starting to feel you're not commenting in good faith here. I'm not going to repeat the same thing over and over. You claim it's not the developers issue all the while claiming the problem goes away once you get more experienced with Rust (hint: that means it's a developer issue). What you really mean is that this issue affects people's non-local code design and that people will eventually get enough experience to head off the issues before they crop up. What I'm saying, and what others have said, is that's a problem with rust and it needs to be fixed so it stops affecting such design. I have found myself rewriting entire functions to get rid of awkwardness due to this issue, and having the experience to write it that way the first time doesn't mean it isn't an issue, and it doesn't mean that it should be idiomatic rust. You keep trying to push this onto the developer, even while claiming you're not doing that.

Manishearth 10y ago
And I'm accepting that it needs to be fixed. I'm accepting that it is an issue. I've said that multiple times. This is _not_ shifting the blame to the developer. This is accepting the blame in the right place. The blame has been accepted. The rest of the point is not about blame (which has already been attributed), it's about hope. Having accepted the blame, I'm saying that one should not feel too discouraged by this issue because most people eventually pick up a programming style that's less prone to this. I'm not saying developers should have to. I'm not saying it's their fault that they haven't. It's totally our fault, and we should fix it. I'm just pointing out what usually happens for most folks learning Rust, so one should be optimistic about this problem and hopefully not be too discouraged by it :) You're interpreting "The developer can avoid this by improving X" as a way of shifting blame to the developer. That is not the intention. It is merely pointing out that the developer can avoid the problem; the ability to avoid the problem does not imply that they are to be blamed for it. It's a comment to instil optimism about the issue. The blame for the issue has already been attributed. I don't disagree that this is a problem with Rust. I don't disagree that Rust should fix it. It's being worked on. In the meantime, I'm advocating optimism for newcomers hitting this issue. One can do both.
- braveo 10y ago
  > You're interpreting "The developer can avoid this by improving X" as a way of shifting blame to the developer. That is not the intention. Regardless of intention, it's a reasonable interpretation. Your initial response came across as defensive. This particular issue was the final straw that made me decide to stop using Rust and wait. It makes the language feel sophomoric and not ready. I'm glad you guys are fixing the issue and maybe at some point I'll try Rust again but probably not before the borrow checker gets more sophisticated. The ones who are not emotionally involved in Rust are not going to simply be hopeful that they'll eventually learn how to work around the deficiencies in the borrow checker. Either way, we're beating a dead horse at this point so we may as well drop it.
  - Manishearth 10y ago
    Glad we're on the same page here now. Sorry if I came off as blaming the developer earlier. Hope you find the time/inclination to pick up rust again! I'm sure these issues will be fixed eventually (hoping that is soon)

by braveo 10y ago

Manishearth 10y ago

And I'm accepting that it needs to be fixed. I'm accepting that it is an issue. I've said that multiple times. This is _not_ shifting the blame to the developer. This is accepting the blame in the right place. The blame has been accepted. The rest of the point is not about blame (which has already been attributed), it's about hope. Having accepted the blame, I'm saying that one should not feel too discouraged by this issue because most people eventually pick up a programming style that's less prone to this. I'm not saying developers should have to. I'm not saying it's their fault that they haven't. It's totally our fault, and we should fix it. I'm just pointing out what usually happens for most folks learning Rust, so one should be optimistic about this problem and hopefully not be too discouraged by it :) You're interpreting "The developer can avoid this by improving X" as a way of shifting blame to the developer. That is not the intention. It is merely pointing out that the developer can avoid the problem; the ability to avoid the problem does not imply that they are to be blamed for it. It's a comment to instil optimism about the issue. The blame for the issue has already been attributed. I don't disagree that this is a problem with Rust. I don't disagree that Rust should fix it. It's being worked on. In the meantime, I'm advocating optimism for newcomers hitting this issue. One can do both.

braveo 10y ago
> You're interpreting "The developer can avoid this by improving X" as a way of shifting blame to the developer. That is not the intention. Regardless of intention, it's a reasonable interpretation. Your initial response came across as defensive. This particular issue was the final straw that made me decide to stop using Rust and wait. It makes the language feel sophomoric and not ready. I'm glad you guys are fixing the issue and maybe at some point I'll try Rust again but probably not before the borrow checker gets more sophisticated. The ones who are not emotionally involved in Rust are not going to simply be hopeful that they'll eventually learn how to work around the deficiencies in the borrow checker. Either way, we're beating a dead horse at this point so we may as well drop it.
- Manishearth 10y ago
  Glad we're on the same page here now. Sorry if I came off as blaming the developer earlier. Hope you find the time/inclination to pick up rust again! I'm sure these issues will be fixed eventually (hoping that is soon)