3 ms·
Yea fair point, just haven't been writing enough rust over the last few months :( There remains a small part of me that enjoyed the explicitness of fighting th
by nixpulvis 8y ago
Yea fair point, just haven't been writing enough rust over the last few months :(
There remains a small part of me that enjoyed the explicitness of fighting the compiler to understand what type I was actually dealing with (forced learning).
- steveklabnik 8y agoHave you read https://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/theres-more-to-mathematics-than-rigour-and-proofs/ https://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/theres-more-to-... before? I find it extremely interesting. Sounds like you may be on the "rigorous" stage. This kind of feature helps the pre and post stages, at the expense of that one.
- nixpulvis 8y agoI hadn't. It's a great peice though. The rust programmer who adds and removes `&` and `ref` blindly is in phase 1, the part I'm claiming to like is more or less phase 2, where some real thought goes into it, "here I have a &Option, so here it must be &Some(...)" and so on. Phase three is practical, much like how I might tell someone in casual conversation that something took orders of magnitude more time, without worrying too much about what magnitude I'm really talking about. This can give you the head space to tackle "real problems". As rust matures (and its users with it) I can understand the desire for these conveniences. I do feel the language loses some of its educational prowess. I'm always arguing in favor of more Racket like ideas, but the whole family of languages thing helps in this regard, but makes for quickly divergent communities. </ramble>