3 ms·
They did a good job on it. I'm just not a big fan of the "zero-cost abstractions" approach for typical programming tasks. In those cases, it's just over-compl
by jstewartmobile 8y ago
They did a good job on it. I'm just not a big fan of the "zero-cost abstractions" approach for typical programming tasks. In those cases, it's just over-complicating things for premature optimization. And the compiler is slow as molasses--which really takes a lot of fun out of the workflow for me.
Also think a lot the popularity comes from social factors rather than practical considerations. It's like an "I fought the borrow-checker, and won!" t-shirt for your resume. The guys writing Redox--yeah, that's a practical use for Rust. The guys writing web frameworks in it... no comment.
- smt88 8y ago> it's just over-complicating things for premature optimization 1) I don't really understand how an abstraction can be premature optimization, unless you mean "optimization" in the human sense -- optimizing the coder's time instead of the machine's resources. 2) Rust was invented to rewrite a major web browser... so it wasn't premature optimization for its original intended purpose/users. They knew what they were going to need.
- jstewartmobile 8y ago1) The coder's time is definitely part of the equation. The zero-cost approach adds more to the cognitive load (and the syntax) compared to a GC language where you can just allocate-and-forget. 2) Other part of the sentence was "typical programming tasks." Browser dev is fairly rarified compared to things like webapps, CRM, embedded, etc. It's like every kid today has Rust on his resume, but when I look at their work history, they've never even pushed the performance boundaries of Python...