5 ms·
I would say unlikely, for the simple reason that Rust is just really hard.
by _jordan 9y ago
I would say unlikely, for the simple reason that Rust is just really hard.
- sidlls 9y agoC++ is hard, too. So is C, to write correctly. Hasn't stopped either of them from literally powering almost every computer in use. Rust's complexity is equivalent to, but distinct from C++'s. I prefer it over C++, and I'm one big fan of the latter.
- xiphias 9y agoI think C++ is much harder actually. Making sure that the system doesn't crash means writing a lot more unit tests than what would be needed, and sometimes these problems come out in production only. I would love to switch to Rust, but it takes many years in a big company.
- eridius 9y agoI agree. Learning all of C++ is much harder than learning all of Rust. C++'s saving grace is you can easily get away with learning only a much smaller portion of the language.
- _jordan 9y agoRust is a paradigm shift; "...to write correctly" most people don't start off the bat with correct IMO. The learning curve is steep with rust.
- sidlls 9y agoYes, and I would say that is problematic for fast uptake. However I don't think that over the long term it is an insurmountable barrier.
- Ar-Curunir 9y agoC++ and C are easy to get into a working state, and then you bit by bit discover your mistakes. Rust forces that information up front, and that can be problematic for people who aren't used to it ( and just want to get a back up and running, which is unfortunately too many real world systems).
- mmstick 9y agoIt's not really hard. It's incredibly easy, from my perspective. It only took me about a week to get a hang of it -- about the same amount of time that it took me to get the hang of Go. Yet the difficulty curve progressively becomes easier and easier until it's much easier to write and maintain software in Rust than Go or even Python. Now I can regularly slap out solutions to challenging problems that would be much harder in 'easier' languages.
- Rusky 9y agoRust has benefits for writing and maintaining correct code, sure. But your claim here is absolutely absurd. Rust is quite difficult to learn- anecdotally, empirically, and by nature. Being dishonest about Rust is not going to help anyone no matter how good it is.
- dragonwriter 9y agoRust frontloads some required learning related to shared data because of the borrow checker and lifetimes (which is different example of the same kind of frontloaded learning that comes with static type checking.) OTOH, I don't think this makes it harder to learn in net, because it saves down-the-road learning needed for high effectiveness of a likely greater magnitude than what is frontloaded. But it does raise the learning cost of getting to basic proficiency, in the same way as static typing (which, done well, has the same kind of down-the-road savings) does.
- mmstick 9y agoIt's entirely dishonest and ignorant to simply discredit and dismiss someone's point of view because you have it set in your mind to not believe a point of view that isn't your own. My history with Rust is proof alone that there is more to the story than you claim. I'm not the only one that has no difficulty with Rust either. It is all a matter of mindset, and so if you think it is hard, then it will be hard. However, you must remember that like many things in life, learning is like a Chinese finger trap. The more you struggle and resist, the harder it seems. Rust is a Chinese finger trap. Until you change your point of view and use a different, simpler approach, you will have hard time. http://mmstick.tk/posts/id/292 http://mmstick.tk/posts/id/292