4 ms·

You came from interpreted Python to compiled OCaml and I suspect that your initial encounter with a compiler is the underlying issue. (For example, being new to

You came from interpreted Python to compiled OCaml and I suspect that your initial encounter with a compiler is the underlying issue. (For example, being new to FP but very friendly with compilers -- C, C++, Java, C# -- I found the initial OCaml encounter surprisingly pleasant. Haskell was something else though :)) I looked at Rust specs 1.0 when they were released and immediately recognized that Rust is not a 'dating' language, but rather a very serious 'marriage' till death do us part sort of deal. (I would say the same for Haskell, & Scala.) And imho the initial promise of addressing the out of control complexity of C++ was not met. I have no doubt that Rust is a thoughtful, and powerful, language. But you have to be prepared to exchange vows at the alter.

gcp 10y ago
And imho the initial promise of addressing the out of control complexity of C++ was not met. I'm not sure. Type traits seem to be much more manageable than how the same thing is handled in C++ template code, no? Also, if we can bring in ecosystem effects such as cargo...
- eternalban 10y ago
  I guess I should have added that I last touched C++ in '96 and never (ever) have had an urge to look back. :)
  - gcp 10y ago
    I've you've never seen template programming, but just C with classes, then yes, I can see how you arrive at this conclusion. C++ in 2017 is very different from what it was in 1996.
    - eternalban 10y ago
      I was using STL and RTTI. I know the language has substantially improved. These days I've actually rediscovered the joy of plain C.
throwaway91111 10y ago
Of all the things I'd accuse rust of, complex is not one of them. Could you give an example of the complexity? I've not found a single pattern in rust I wouldn't already have to think about in c++, but I have to think about it less because the compiler thinks about it for me. I just can't postpone the confidence until later.
- eternalban 10y ago
  It was an impression, but clearly it is not a 'simple' language at the syntactic or semantic levels. (You should not read my OP as a negative critique. I'm merely pointing out that anyone expecting 'immediate gratification' with Rust is likely to be disappointed.) > the compiler thinks about it for me. Indeed. One valid approach to categorizing programming languages is by considering upfront vs amortized cognitive load.

gcp 10y ago

And imho the initial promise of addressing the out of control complexity of C++ was not met. I'm not sure. Type traits seem to be much more manageable than how the same thing is handled in C++ template code, no? Also, if we can bring in ecosystem effects such as cargo...

eternalban 10y ago
I guess I should have added that I last touched C++ in '96 and never (ever) have had an urge to look back. :)
- gcp 10y ago
  I've you've never seen template programming, but just C with classes, then yes, I can see how you arrive at this conclusion. C++ in 2017 is very different from what it was in 1996.
  - eternalban 10y ago
    I was using STL and RTTI. I know the language has substantially improved. These days I've actually rediscovered the joy of plain C.

throwaway91111 10y ago

Of all the things I'd accuse rust of, complex is not one of them. Could you give an example of the complexity? I've not found a single pattern in rust I wouldn't already have to think about in c++, but I have to think about it less because the compiler thinks about it for me. I just can't postpone the confidence until later.

eternalban 10y ago
It was an impression, but clearly it is not a 'simple' language at the syntactic or semantic levels. (You should not read my OP as a negative critique. I'm merely pointing out that anyone expecting 'immediate gratification' with Rust is likely to be disappointed.) > the compiler thinks about it for me. Indeed. One valid approach to categorizing programming languages is by considering upfront vs amortized cognitive load.