3 ms·

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.

3 ms·

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.

by cillian64 10y ago

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.