4 ms·

Yes but going from one to the other is relatively straightforward and possible in small steps of progression - Rust forces you to deal with a lot of things up f

Yes but going from one to the other is relatively straightforward and possible in small steps of progression - Rust forces you to deal with a lot of things up front which is why people complain. eg. if you're a C++ developer you'll pick up Java very fast, it will take a while to be super productive but you can start working really fast.

cillian64 10y ago
C++ and Java are a bad example as they are unusually similar. Consider moving between C++, Python, and Javascript: on that scale, Rust doesn't seem so far out.
- rubber_duck 10y ago
  >Consider moving between C++, Python, and Javascript I think those will be trivial in that direction, harder in other - but that's not even relevant. I think if Rust aims to occupy C++ domain then it needs to be very easy to get C++ developers on board - and from what I've seen so far it's not quite the case. I'm not sure what can be done about it tho - maybe emphasize unsafe is not a dirty word but a valid approach when doing low level data structure stuff like OP ? Create an unsafe version -> refactor to safe as you're sure it does what you expect and you learn more about borrow checker instead of having to absorb it all at once.
- tonyedgecombe 10y ago
  I doubt moving from Java to C++ would be that trivial, Java is a comparatively safe language without many of the issues that will trip you up in C++.
  - Bartweiss 10y ago
    From personal experience, it's not that bad. C++ is "Java plus you need to worry about these other things", and it pays off in power and speed. They're not so similar in safety/scope terms, but the structure and design have enough in common that you get plenty of spare brainpower to worry about managing C++. It was, for instance, a way more natural transition than "Java and C++ to OCaml". Less educational, but as usual that trades against easy.
  - yellowapple 10y ago
    In particular, the lack of pointers in Java would probably annoy the article author as much as Rust does.
    - AstralStorm 10y ago
      Personally (not the author) I am more annoyed by the gutted single inheritance no traits type system. You have numeric pointers into arrays, they're called indices.
the_af 10y ago
That's because a lot of things (let's not debate exactly how many here) translate well between C++ and Java. But my point wasn't about going between relatively similar languages; it was about learning something radically different for the first time, like it was when you learned your first programming language.
- rubber_duck 10y ago
  But that's not going to work in practice - there are many skilled C++ devs and C++ has many ingrained legacy issues which another systems programming language could solve - but the bridge between that language and C++ must exist for this to happen. Like in the post, OP is a competent programmer - he can solve his problem in C++ - why would he invest months in to Rust to do the same thing ? If your answer is safety then OK that will matter to some but a lot of people don't care enough about it to pay the cost of switching.
  - the_af 10y ago
    Safety and correctness are big deals. I get that for many people they aren't a high priority. Such is life. If someone thinks they won't gain anything by going from C++ to Rust, then no effort to learn it will be worth it. Obviously the Rust devs think there is a benefit.

cillian64 10y ago

C++ and Java are a bad example as they are unusually similar. Consider moving between C++, Python, and Javascript: on that scale, Rust doesn't seem so far out.

rubber_duck 10y ago
>Consider moving between C++, Python, and Javascript I think those will be trivial in that direction, harder in other - but that's not even relevant. I think if Rust aims to occupy C++ domain then it needs to be very easy to get C++ developers on board - and from what I've seen so far it's not quite the case. I'm not sure what can be done about it tho - maybe emphasize unsafe is not a dirty word but a valid approach when doing low level data structure stuff like OP ? Create an unsafe version -> refactor to safe as you're sure it does what you expect and you learn more about borrow checker instead of having to absorb it all at once.
tonyedgecombe 10y ago
I doubt moving from Java to C++ would be that trivial, Java is a comparatively safe language without many of the issues that will trip you up in C++.
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  From personal experience, it's not that bad. C++ is "Java plus you need to worry about these other things", and it pays off in power and speed. They're not so similar in safety/scope terms, but the structure and design have enough in common that you get plenty of spare brainpower to worry about managing C++. It was, for instance, a way more natural transition than "Java and C++ to OCaml". Less educational, but as usual that trades against easy.
- yellowapple 10y ago
  In particular, the lack of pointers in Java would probably annoy the article author as much as Rust does.
  - AstralStorm 10y ago
    Personally (not the author) I am more annoyed by the gutted single inheritance no traits type system. You have numeric pointers into arrays, they're called indices.

the_af 10y ago

That's because a lot of things (let's not debate exactly how many here) translate well between C++ and Java. But my point wasn't about going between relatively similar languages; it was about learning something radically different for the first time, like it was when you learned your first programming language.

rubber_duck 10y ago
But that's not going to work in practice - there are many skilled C++ devs and C++ has many ingrained legacy issues which another systems programming language could solve - but the bridge between that language and C++ must exist for this to happen. Like in the post, OP is a competent programmer - he can solve his problem in C++ - why would he invest months in to Rust to do the same thing ? If your answer is safety then OK that will matter to some but a lot of people don't care enough about it to pay the cost of switching.
- the_af 10y ago
  Safety and correctness are big deals. I get that for many people they aren't a high priority. Such is life. If someone thinks they won't gain anything by going from C++ to Rust, then no effort to learn it will be worth it. Obviously the Rust devs think there is a benefit.