5 ms·

I know that this is irrelevant, but is it worth the trouble to learn an esoteric language such as Rust? For me it seems a waste of time to learn a language alon

by aviaro 8y ago

I know that this is irrelevant, but is it worth the trouble to learn an esoteric language such as Rust? For me it seems a waste of time to learn a language along with its ecosystem where there are few job prospects. Right now Go seems to be on an upward trajectory, and despite its ugliness and how primitive it is, it is the job which can pays off when hunting for jobs.

platz 8y ago
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=java,golang https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=java,golang
- NamPNQ 8y ago
  java query include jav full hd
tayo42 8y ago
If your goal for learning is to just be more employable then yeah I think its a waste of time. The language is probably worth keeping an eye on though and knowing enough about it to consider it in the future if it does pick up significant traction. And to go even more off topic. I thought the go hype was kind of dying down?
- aviaro 8y ago
  Go is probably going to stay. Last when I looked at job boards, I saw a fair number of Go keywords
hardwaresofton 8y ago
Rust and Go, while really similar, kind of are different in use -- the key differntiator is memory management, and memory safety. For a LOT of applications, this isn't necessary or a big deal (see: just about every program written in a language that isn't c/c++). I see Golang replacing Java longterm and Rust replacing C/C++ (yeah, even C) due to the memory safety and preciseness + speed it offers. It may never be truly C speed, but from where I stand the tradeoff is worth it (and when it becomes NOT worth it, rust/c interop is SUPER easy). While I like Rust a lot, I think it's definitely not the language to learn if you want a job right now. If you want a job right now, go learn Java. Unfortunately, depending on the company you go into, you can basically throw away the next X years of your life working with uninsteresting/stagnant codebases, unmotivated peers, and clueless management -- OR you'll find companies that are using Java in a progressive way. If you want to invest in a language that will likely become a big player in the next 10 years, and is soundly written, maintained and progressed in the open, then commit to rust. Also a sidenote, most good managers/engineers realize that syntax doesn't actually really matter. Good engineers get up to speed in languages they've never used in days/weeks -- if you know the paradigms, and how to design good programs, it's a matter of just changing what you type. Knowing X language isn't what makes a good developer, it's knowing some sufficiently multi-paradigm langauge X well enough that you've moved past the basics and started re-discovering paradigms, design patterns, and answers to problems in a few problem domains.
- jkarneges 8y ago
  > I see [..] Rust replacing C/C++ (yeah, even C) To me, the possibility of Rust replacing C is the most interesting aspect of the language. (I'm not sure I see it replacing C++, but maybe competing with it; choose between evolution or revolution!) The general hype around Rust is fascinating to me though. I assume it's mostly driven by former C/C++ programmers, but the process has been noisy enough to attract attention from the general developer community? If anyone wanted a non-GC language, C++ has been here since forever and is still being worked on. But Rust has somehow made non-GC seem cool? > It may never be truly C speed, but from where I stand the tradeoff is worth it I'm a Rust newbie and haven't benchmarked anything, but the sense I get from the docs is that it theoretically can be as fast depending on how much you limit yourself. Kinda like how C++ can be as fast as C, if written with care. It would be great to see a write-up comparing Rust and C overhead, e.g. cpu/memory overhead of function calls, slices, etc.
  - hardwaresofton 8y ago
    I think the hype around rust is actually pretty well warranted though -- people got really excited about Go and Rust because they were new "systems" languages, and the world hasn't really seen one of those in a while. "systems language" is a pretty vague term, but one of the things I think is important is that memory be manually managed -- I think most people would agree with that. I think Rust is interesting to the people already using non-GC languages is precisely because it offers the speed of C/C++ with LESS of the footgun aspect. Writing C/C++ is accessible and familiar, but it is far from simple, there are tons of pitfalls. Rust has less of those, and takes a modern approach to much of it's toolchain bits and ergonomics. > I'm a Rust newbie and haven't benchmarked anything, but the sense I get from the docs is that it theoretically can be as fast depending on how much you limit yourself. Kinda like how C++ can be as fast as C, if written with care. Almost axiomatically, if Rust could be built 100% with ONLY zero cost abstractions, then it could certainly be as fast as C. Concretely, I don't think that's possible, because usually abstractions will cost you something even if it's just a single extra function call redirection. However, you can definitely get to a point where the difference is negligible, and the downsides (maintainability taking a nosedive) make the tradeoff worth it. I think if you were to compare rust and C overhead in terms of function calls, slices and the like , you'd just be comparing compilers and micro optimizations implemented in both. I think it's kind of hard to test for the things that really make rust shine -- it's all the time you DON'T spend on race condition bugs, and the time you DON'T spend debugging pointer issues.
cbcoutinho 8y ago
For comparison, think about the python paradox [0] [0] http://www.paulgraham.com/pypar.html http://www.paulgraham.com/pypar.html
necubi 8y ago
I've been casually following rust for ~5 years now, but finally decided to really put in the effort to learn in in the past several months. It's definitely a slog to really "get" the Rust mindset (as well as learn the various sharp corners of the borrow checker and lifetime systems), but I think it has made me a better programmer. To write Rust you have to be very conscious of how you're sharing data between functions, structs, and threads. This is a common source of bugs even in GC languages, so working with a compiler that will point out your mistakes teaches you how to avoid such issues in other, less prescriptive languages. I also think rust is a lot of fun! I haven't had a chance to use it professionally yet, and it doesn't seem to have made much impact in industry yet, but I think it will get there. Right now it's pretty hard to write networked services (the main market for Go it seems), but that will get a lot better this year as libraries mature and async/await is stabilized.
evincarofautumn 8y ago
I think it is worthwhile. If you know a less mainstream language, you can find opportunities to use it at work when it provides a significant advantage, such as being more naturally suited to a particular problem, or having libraries that do what you need. You can also borrow useful ideas and patterns from it and bring them over to the language(s) you do use at work, if they offer ways to improve expressiveness, correctness, maintainability, and so on. Knowing an array of significantly different languages gives you a far broader array of mental tools to use in the design and implementation of software systems than if you stick to one language family or paradigm, even if you only ever use a few mainstream languages at work in practice. For example, I didn’t have any idea how to do parallelism and concurrency correctly in C++ until using them in Haskell and porting the ideas back over. Same goes for a lot of techniques that were easier to learn in other languages and translate over, like writing parsers, implementing constraint solvers, enforcing complex invariants with types, &c.
always_good 8y ago
If you aren't marketable and know no other languages, then yes, you should probably start in something more mainstream. Just seems more time efficient. If you are, then it doesn't matter. Learn a new thing and try it out.
thomastjeffery 8y ago
Rust and Go are not in the same category of language. Go is garbage collected; Rust is not. The value of a language is not defined by how experience with it looks on a resume. If that is your only concern, of course you won't find Rust worthwhile (yet).
crispinb 8y ago
It depends very much on where you are in your career. If you're at the stage where you feel confident that you can maintain a living, then of course it's 'worth the trouble'. I don't know Rust, and don't imagine it's something I'll ever use professionally, but it's definitely on my (too long, and increasing rather than diminishing) list of things to learn. If you're not yet 'secure' (no-one ever really is, but you know what I mean), then, you'd probably be better off learning something more immediately bankable, and coming back to Rust later. Though there's no rule. An early-stage developer might have a passion/aptitude for Rust, and the resources to work hard learning it, contributing to open-source, pitching themselves at companies they've researched and like the look of, etc.

by aviaro 8y ago

platz 8y ago

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=java,golang https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=java,golang

NamPNQ 8y ago
java query include jav full hd

tayo42 8y ago

If your goal for learning is to just be more employable then yeah I think its a waste of time. The language is probably worth keeping an eye on though and knowing enough about it to consider it in the future if it does pick up significant traction. And to go even more off topic. I thought the go hype was kind of dying down?

aviaro 8y ago
Go is probably going to stay. Last when I looked at job boards, I saw a fair number of Go keywords

hardwaresofton 8y ago

Rust and Go, while really similar, kind of are different in use -- the key differntiator is memory management, and memory safety. For a LOT of applications, this isn't necessary or a big deal (see: just about every program written in a language that isn't c/c++). I see Golang replacing Java longterm and Rust replacing C/C++ (yeah, even C) due to the memory safety and preciseness + speed it offers. It may never be truly C speed, but from where I stand the tradeoff is worth it (and when it becomes NOT worth it, rust/c interop is SUPER easy). While I like Rust a lot, I think it's definitely not the language to learn if you want a job right now. If you want a job right now, go learn Java. Unfortunately, depending on the company you go into, you can basically throw away the next X years of your life working with uninsteresting/stagnant codebases, unmotivated peers, and clueless management -- OR you'll find companies that are using Java in a progressive way. If you want to invest in a language that will likely become a big player in the next 10 years, and is soundly written, maintained and progressed in the open, then commit to rust. Also a sidenote, most good managers/engineers realize that syntax doesn't actually really matter. Good engineers get up to speed in languages they've never used in days/weeks -- if you know the paradigms, and how to design good programs, it's a matter of just changing what you type. Knowing X language isn't what makes a good developer, it's knowing some sufficiently multi-paradigm langauge X well enough that you've moved past the basics and started re-discovering paradigms, design patterns, and answers to problems in a few problem domains.

jkarneges 8y ago
> I see [..] Rust replacing C/C++ (yeah, even C) To me, the possibility of Rust replacing C is the most interesting aspect of the language. (I'm not sure I see it replacing C++, but maybe competing with it; choose between evolution or revolution!) The general hype around Rust is fascinating to me though. I assume it's mostly driven by former C/C++ programmers, but the process has been noisy enough to attract attention from the general developer community? If anyone wanted a non-GC language, C++ has been here since forever and is still being worked on. But Rust has somehow made non-GC seem cool? > It may never be truly C speed, but from where I stand the tradeoff is worth it I'm a Rust newbie and haven't benchmarked anything, but the sense I get from the docs is that it theoretically can be as fast depending on how much you limit yourself. Kinda like how C++ can be as fast as C, if written with care. It would be great to see a write-up comparing Rust and C overhead, e.g. cpu/memory overhead of function calls, slices, etc.
- hardwaresofton 8y ago
  I think the hype around rust is actually pretty well warranted though -- people got really excited about Go and Rust because they were new "systems" languages, and the world hasn't really seen one of those in a while. "systems language" is a pretty vague term, but one of the things I think is important is that memory be manually managed -- I think most people would agree with that. I think Rust is interesting to the people already using non-GC languages is precisely because it offers the speed of C/C++ with LESS of the footgun aspect. Writing C/C++ is accessible and familiar, but it is far from simple, there are tons of pitfalls. Rust has less of those, and takes a modern approach to much of it's toolchain bits and ergonomics. > I'm a Rust newbie and haven't benchmarked anything, but the sense I get from the docs is that it theoretically can be as fast depending on how much you limit yourself. Kinda like how C++ can be as fast as C, if written with care. Almost axiomatically, if Rust could be built 100% with ONLY zero cost abstractions, then it could certainly be as fast as C. Concretely, I don't think that's possible, because usually abstractions will cost you something even if it's just a single extra function call redirection. However, you can definitely get to a point where the difference is negligible, and the downsides (maintainability taking a nosedive) make the tradeoff worth it. I think if you were to compare rust and C overhead in terms of function calls, slices and the like , you'd just be comparing compilers and micro optimizations implemented in both. I think it's kind of hard to test for the things that really make rust shine -- it's all the time you DON'T spend on race condition bugs, and the time you DON'T spend debugging pointer issues.

cbcoutinho 8y ago

For comparison, think about the python paradox [0] [0] http://www.paulgraham.com/pypar.html http://www.paulgraham.com/pypar.html

necubi 8y ago

I've been casually following rust for ~5 years now, but finally decided to really put in the effort to learn in in the past several months. It's definitely a slog to really "get" the Rust mindset (as well as learn the various sharp corners of the borrow checker and lifetime systems), but I think it has made me a better programmer. To write Rust you have to be very conscious of how you're sharing data between functions, structs, and threads. This is a common source of bugs even in GC languages, so working with a compiler that will point out your mistakes teaches you how to avoid such issues in other, less prescriptive languages. I also think rust is a lot of fun! I haven't had a chance to use it professionally yet, and it doesn't seem to have made much impact in industry yet, but I think it will get there. Right now it's pretty hard to write networked services (the main market for Go it seems), but that will get a lot better this year as libraries mature and async/await is stabilized.

evincarofautumn 8y ago

I think it is worthwhile. If you know a less mainstream language, you can find opportunities to use it at work when it provides a significant advantage, such as being more naturally suited to a particular problem, or having libraries that do what you need. You can also borrow useful ideas and patterns from it and bring them over to the language(s) you do use at work, if they offer ways to improve expressiveness, correctness, maintainability, and so on. Knowing an array of significantly different languages gives you a far broader array of mental tools to use in the design and implementation of software systems than if you stick to one language family or paradigm, even if you only ever use a few mainstream languages at work in practice. For example, I didn’t have any idea how to do parallelism and concurrency correctly in C++ until using them in Haskell and porting the ideas back over. Same goes for a lot of techniques that were easier to learn in other languages and translate over, like writing parsers, implementing constraint solvers, enforcing complex invariants with types, &c.

always_good 8y ago

If you aren't marketable and know no other languages, then yes, you should probably start in something more mainstream. Just seems more time efficient. If you are, then it doesn't matter. Learn a new thing and try it out.

thomastjeffery 8y ago

Rust and Go are not in the same category of language. Go is garbage collected; Rust is not. The value of a language is not defined by how experience with it looks on a resume. If that is your only concern, of course you won't find Rust worthwhile (yet).

crispinb 8y ago

It depends very much on where you are in your career. If you're at the stage where you feel confident that you can maintain a living, then of course it's 'worth the trouble'. I don't know Rust, and don't imagine it's something I'll ever use professionally, but it's definitely on my (too long, and increasing rather than diminishing) list of things to learn. If you're not yet 'secure' (no-one ever really is, but you know what I mean), then, you'd probably be better off learning something more immediately bankable, and coming back to Rust later. Though there's no rule. An early-stage developer might have a passion/aptitude for Rust, and the resources to work hard learning it, contributing to open-source, pitching themselves at companies they've researched and like the look of, etc.