3 ms·
Thing is, for understanding why Rust is the way it is, you need to suffer through memory leaks and eg. buffer overflows, segfaults, lack of strict typing, etc.
by tannhaeuser 10y ago
Thing is, for understanding why Rust is the way it is, you need to suffer through memory leaks and eg. buffer overflows, segfaults, lack of strict typing, etc.
Same with most frameworks I know, regardless of where in the stack.
That's why I believe Java is a bad educational language, and Donald Knuth uses MIX assembly in his books.
- jbob2000 10y agoThat's like saying, "to understand why the automobile is valuable, you need to suffer through a horse and carriage". You don't need to suffer through yesterday's problems to understand today's.
- apersona 10y agoI don't think it's about suffering yesterday's problems to understand today's. Learning to program in C made me a better programmer because I had to watch out for memory, etc. I think a better analogy would be how even with modern animation software, great animators still recommend being able to draw well with pencil and paper ("lower level", slower) to develop a sense for the nuances of animation.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- tannhaeuser 10y agoFair point. But I know that for me knowledge of machine-level or at least C-level code is requisite know-how to comfortably build abstractions on. I'd have a problem starting in the middle of a stack at a boundary someone else has drawn for me, and which at times seems arbitrary to me (speaking in terms of general knowledge scope, not about work on a particular project). I frankly don't get how this' generations young developers can cope with this kind of ignorance and unknown territory in their stack (but I admire or pitty them for it rather than looking down to them).