4 ms·

I completely believe you - but think about how absurd that is. Why did any of them want to write any rust a month ago? Were all rust users really naive/dumb to

I completely believe you - but think about how absurd that is. Why did any of them want to write any rust a month ago? Were all rust users really naive/dumb to think that rust 1.29 was any good at all? Only 2 months later they never want to write Rust 1.29 ever again! I can be quite productive with C and Python from 10 years ago. Most Go I programs I write happen to be compatible with Go-1.7 from 2016, but I could go back to Go-1.4 from 2014 without much trouble if I had a reason to. Coincidentally, you can build the latest Go toolchain with Go-1.4, which was the last version written in C. I guess the Golang authors are just superhuman engineers, huh ...

steveklabnik 8y ago
I think your parent is exaggerating a bit, but this is just generally true of any release with a bug feature in it that people are excited to use. Now that it exists, why would you not want to use it? For context, Rust 1.31 is sorta like the Go 2 release. It’s a much bigger deal than regular releases.
- ploxiln 8y ago
  If you're writing a toy/exercise, sure, have fun, I support that. It's part of developing your skills and thinking about software. If you're writing infrastructure, please don't. (e.g. Firefox ... or the toolchain itself) I'm one of those guys with no particular interest in Go 2. I really have plenty to work with already.
- gilnaa 8y ago
  It's not always up to me which compiler version I use. Some organizations change compilers very slowly, and you can't assume you always have the most updated compiler. For example, when writing a library for my org I assumed that GCC 5.4 (2016) is a reasonable lower bound, and I used the appropriate set of supported C++11 features, and twice I had to downgrade as different teams notified me they had older and older compilers. (and couldn't upgrade)
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
Tuna-Fish 8y ago
Rust 1.31 shipped a specific feature that was proposed right from the start of the lexical lifetimes, since well before 1.0. People have wanted it since first hearing about it, but it just turned out to be much more difficult to implement correctly than first estimated. > Were all rust users really naive/dumb to think that rust 1.29 was any good at all? Only 2 months later they never want to write Rust 1.29 ever again! Rust 1.29 was fast and secure, but it also was annoying to write. Lexical lifetimes forced the structure of your code into a shape that sometimes required unnatural contortions. Basically everyone who wrote code in it could tell that something was definitely wrong. We still used it, because the other things Rust provided was worth the contortions. It was just a tradeoff you had to make. NLL, provided in 1.31, essentially removes the problem, making the other side of the tradeoff free. While previous versions of the Rust weren't horrible, 1.31 is massively better than them.
TheCoelacanth 8y ago
Is it supposed to be a bad thing that Rust keeps adding compelling new features that makes people want to upgrade?

steveklabnik 8y ago

I think your parent is exaggerating a bit, but this is just generally true of any release with a bug feature in it that people are excited to use. Now that it exists, why would you not want to use it? For context, Rust 1.31 is sorta like the Go 2 release. It’s a much bigger deal than regular releases.

ploxiln 8y ago
If you're writing a toy/exercise, sure, have fun, I support that. It's part of developing your skills and thinking about software. If you're writing infrastructure, please don't. (e.g. Firefox ... or the toolchain itself) I'm one of those guys with no particular interest in Go 2. I really have plenty to work with already.
gilnaa 8y ago
It's not always up to me which compiler version I use. Some organizations change compilers very slowly, and you can't assume you always have the most updated compiler. For example, when writing a library for my org I assumed that GCC 5.4 (2016) is a reasonable lower bound, and I used the appropriate set of supported C++11 features, and twice I had to downgrade as different teams notified me they had older and older compilers. (and couldn't upgrade)
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

Tuna-Fish 8y ago

Rust 1.31 shipped a specific feature that was proposed right from the start of the lexical lifetimes, since well before 1.0. People have wanted it since first hearing about it, but it just turned out to be much more difficult to implement correctly than first estimated. > Were all rust users really naive/dumb to think that rust 1.29 was any good at all? Only 2 months later they never want to write Rust 1.29 ever again! Rust 1.29 was fast and secure, but it also was annoying to write. Lexical lifetimes forced the structure of your code into a shape that sometimes required unnatural contortions. Basically everyone who wrote code in it could tell that something was definitely wrong. We still used it, because the other things Rust provided was worth the contortions. It was just a tradeoff you had to make. NLL, provided in 1.31, essentially removes the problem, making the other side of the tradeoff free. While previous versions of the Rust weren't horrible, 1.31 is massively better than them.

TheCoelacanth 8y ago

Is it supposed to be a bad thing that Rust keeps adding compelling new features that makes people want to upgrade?