4 ms·
The OP didn't ask for zero cost abstractions. Furthermore, maybe "zero-cost" is not the best way to describe Rust abstraction; they may be zero cost for the mac
by bigato 8y ago
The OP didn't ask for zero cost abstractions. Furthermore, maybe "zero-cost" is not the best way to describe Rust abstraction; they may be zero cost for the machine at runtime, in exchange for a bigger mental burden on the programmer, thus being better labeled as a trade-off in more speed in exchange for more complexity. Whether this trade-off is worth it, will depend on some factors like the use case and the programmers involved. And the OP was actually complaining about the added complexity, thus my answer being Go.
- steveklabnik 8y ago> Furthermore, maybe "zero-cost" is not the best way to describe Rust abstraction "Zero-cost" has always been about runtime cost. Other costs are not part of the slogan. Everything always has a cost!
- majewsky 8y agoAnd notably, Rust didn't start the "zero-cost abstraction" meme, C++ did.
- steveklabnik 8y agoYup!
- RaleyField 8y ago> bigger mental burden on the programmer Only sometimes. For complex enough problems I think mental burden of writing and maintaining software in less complex language will become more burdensome than the intrinsic burden that comes with more complex language.