3 ms·
Rust as productive as Python lol ... things you read on HN. Even if the compiler catches more bugs it doesn't mean it's more productive, I give you a problem an
by Thaxll 9y ago
Rust as productive as Python lol ... things you read on HN. Even if the compiler catches more bugs it doesn't mean it's more productive, I give you a problem and you have to solve it in Python and Rust, Python problem will be solved much faster because the language has higher construct for day to day programming.
- steveklabnik 9y agoIt depends on what you mean. You're optimizing for time to first solve; what about when you find bugs that would have been caught at compile-time in Rust? What about existing codebases, rather than writing new code? It's not that simple of a question. I find personally that if there are libraries to help me out, I'm only slightly slower in Rust than I am in Ruby, but then there's no debugging time in Rust, and invariably, there will be tons of work I have to do later with the Ruby to shake out bugs. YMMV.
- jgraham 9y agoFWIW my last project was in Rust, and the current one is in Python (with which I have more experience), mostly due to Python having some useful libraries for what is mostly an exercise in gluing together different external systems. Despite the fact that I chose to do this in Python, I'm not at all sure I wouldn't have had a working solution faster in a language that had a good type system and a error handling strategy that made errors explicit and forced them to be handled. I'm almost certain that writing in Rust would have ended up with something that was more reliable in the long term. (FTR I imagine that Go may also have been a reasonable choice for this kind of work, but I haven't used it).