4 ms·

Wouldn't this be fixed simply by calling `addSubview` last (and designing your UI toolkit in such a way that you don't need to imperatively call `sizeToFit` aft

Wouldn't this be fixed simply by calling `addSubview` last (and designing your UI toolkit in such a way that you don't need to imperatively call `sizeToFit` after adding a thing to a container, but implicitly sizing things correctly during layout)?

zaphar 9y ago
Any solution that boils down to just get everyone who writes code you have to interact with to always write the code correctly is doomed to failure. Rust tries to make it impossible in the general cases to do the wrong thing. And gives you an unsafe escape hatch for when you need to do something the compiler won't allow. The result is vastly safer code because the compiler guards against the most typical human failings.
camgunz 9y ago
Sometimes whatever `window` and `button` actually are have references to each other (ex: parent/children relationships) so it's possible -- in fact it's surprisingly common that -- there is no correct order. You need total knowledge of what can throw exceptions, and while the same is true for status codes, the raison d'etre for exceptions is shrinking the amount of error handling in your code. If you're checking for exceptions at the same rate you'd be checking for status codes, exceptions are pointless. But generally, your suggestion to change the architecture points to what the problem with these "ergonomic" changes engender. You more or less never have to rearchitect or refactor things when using status codes, and rearchitecting and refactoring are error prone and generally hugely fraught. The cognitive load of things like exceptions leads to lower productivity or lower quality, because you only have so many brain cycles and something has to give. I think ergonomic changes are helpful to get more dynamic programmers into stricter languages like Rust. But I think we should keep in mind that typing and boilerplate are really never our problems and prioritize accordingly.

zaphar 9y ago

Any solution that boils down to just get everyone who writes code you have to interact with to always write the code correctly is doomed to failure. Rust tries to make it impossible in the general cases to do the wrong thing. And gives you an unsafe escape hatch for when you need to do something the compiler won't allow. The result is vastly safer code because the compiler guards against the most typical human failings.

camgunz 9y ago

Sometimes whatever `window` and `button` actually are have references to each other (ex: parent/children relationships) so it's possible -- in fact it's surprisingly common that -- there is no correct order. You need total knowledge of what can throw exceptions, and while the same is true for status codes, the raison d'etre for exceptions is shrinking the amount of error handling in your code. If you're checking for exceptions at the same rate you'd be checking for status codes, exceptions are pointless. But generally, your suggestion to change the architecture points to what the problem with these "ergonomic" changes engender. You more or less never have to rearchitect or refactor things when using status codes, and rearchitecting and refactoring are error prone and generally hugely fraught. The cognitive load of things like exceptions leads to lower productivity or lower quality, because you only have so many brain cycles and something has to give. I think ergonomic changes are helpful to get more dynamic programmers into stricter languages like Rust. But I think we should keep in mind that typing and boilerplate are really never our problems and prioritize accordingly.