3 ms·

To be clear, I think the data supports that Rust comes with a non-negligible learning cost. Whether that cost is continually paid isn't clear yet. (I personally

To be clear, I think the data supports that Rust comes with a non-negligible learning cost. Whether that cost is continually paid isn't clear yet. (I personally think the answer is "no.")

pron 10y ago
I agree that there's no data, but I would be very surprised if the answer is indeed no, as there are at least good theoretical reasons to assume extra cost. Proving anything (let alone to a compiler) comes at a computational complexity cost (think of the proof as a certificate). In principle, a large number of proofs may be "free" in the sense that no more information than the programmer normally supplies the compiler is necessary. But if this is true in every case, that is very surprising.
- burntsushi 10y ago
  It's not very surprising to me. Paraphrasing, "once I got past the initial hurdle of the borrow checker, programming in Rust became much easier," is frequently uttered in the Rust community. I'm not trying to make a very nuanced claim here. All I'm saying is that there's clearly a lot of people who struggle while learning Rust, but that this is very different than paying an eternal development cost similar to that struggle. We should be careful not to conflate them. (I did not meant to get into a broader philosophical discussion about using a type system. That's a different conversation IMO, and I disagree with your analysis because you only focus on the upfront cost while neglecting the maintenance costs in the absence of such proofs.)
  - pron 10y ago
    > programming in Rust became much easier Much easier than what? Writing C? I believe you. I agree with you about maintenance, and I agree that there are two separate issues, but still, extra proof must invariably carry some extra mental burden. There are no free proofs just as there are no free prime factors. This isn't a philosophical issue, but a computational one. But it's also true that the mental burden might offset a different sort of mental burden. So whether there is additional work or not is unclear, but I think it's pretty clear that the nature of the work is different.
    - burntsushi 10y ago
      I don't disagree. But I find this to be a very different claim than the one I initially protested. To re-iterate: I'm trying to point out that there's a difference between learning costs and eternal development costs. The OP is a data point in support of the former, not the latter. I'm not going to debate the trade offs of type systems with you. It's been done to death.
      - pron 10y ago
        I doubt there would be much debate, as we're likely on the same side :)

To be clear, I think the data supports that Rust comes with a non-negligible learning cost. Whether that cost is continually paid isn't clear yet. (I personally think the answer is "no.")

pron 10y ago

I agree that there's no data, but I would be very surprised if the answer is indeed no, as there are at least good theoretical reasons to assume extra cost. Proving anything (let alone to a compiler) comes at a computational complexity cost (think of the proof as a certificate). In principle, a large number of proofs may be "free" in the sense that no more information than the programmer normally supplies the compiler is necessary. But if this is true in every case, that is very surprising.

burntsushi 10y ago
It's not very surprising to me. Paraphrasing, "once I got past the initial hurdle of the borrow checker, programming in Rust became much easier," is frequently uttered in the Rust community. I'm not trying to make a very nuanced claim here. All I'm saying is that there's clearly a lot of people who struggle while learning Rust, but that this is very different than paying an eternal development cost similar to that struggle. We should be careful not to conflate them. (I did not meant to get into a broader philosophical discussion about using a type system. That's a different conversation IMO, and I disagree with your analysis because you only focus on the upfront cost while neglecting the maintenance costs in the absence of such proofs.)
- pron 10y ago
  > programming in Rust became much easier Much easier than what? Writing C? I believe you. I agree with you about maintenance, and I agree that there are two separate issues, but still, extra proof must invariably carry some extra mental burden. There are no free proofs just as there are no free prime factors. This isn't a philosophical issue, but a computational one. But it's also true that the mental burden might offset a different sort of mental burden. So whether there is additional work or not is unclear, but I think it's pretty clear that the nature of the work is different.
  - burntsushi 10y ago
    I don't disagree. But I find this to be a very different claim than the one I initially protested. To re-iterate: I'm trying to point out that there's a difference between learning costs and eternal development costs. The OP is a data point in support of the former, not the latter. I'm not going to debate the trade offs of type systems with you. It's been done to death.
    - pron 10y ago
      I doubt there would be much debate, as we're likely on the same side :)