3 ms·

> I don't care if the author is a Rust expert or total newb. Someone who can write a 3D modeler in C++ is someone who should be able to use any new Algol-derive

> I don't care if the author is a Rust expert or total newb. Someone who can write a 3D modeler in C++ is someone who should be able to use any new Algol-derived language with ease in short time, regardless if they hasn't seen a line of code in that language before. This statement is absurd. It implies that you believe that there are only cosmetic differences between languages, that no language can ever introduce any useful new concepts. Rust is not hard to learn. However, it contains new things that require you to put in the time to learn them. None of those things are as hard as learning, say, recursion or assignment was when you did it the first time. However, unlike switching between other mainstream "algol-derived" languages, there are actual new things you have to learn. If you go into it just pretending it's a cosmetically different variant of C++, you are going to bang your head on every sharp corner until you quit in frustration. And having those new concepts is the price of progress. The current programming paradigms are not sustainable in a world where basically every line of code you write is going to end up as a part of the attack surface of some system that will, eventually, get attacked.

dasloop 8y ago
A junior did an interview with us for a C++ position. At the end he recognized that he had a very superficial knowledge and ask to do the programming test in Java because “programming is programming” (using imperative languages). And then we have developers using C as FORTRAN, C++ as C, Rust as C++... and maybe this will be passable if you are a solo developer but not if you are in a team. Then add knowledge of the ecosystem :)
coldtea 8y ago
> This statement is absurd. It implies that you believe that there are only cosmetic differences between languages, that no language can ever introduce any useful new concepts. Well, the fact that you've missed the whole "Algol-derived language" is more absurd to me. Rust, in the end, is C++-streamlined plus fighting with the borrow checker. Not some huge new paradigm shift in how we construct programs (as would be eg. going from C to Lisp or Idris) -- just making the lifetime aspect of memory management explicit and having the coder handle it (in lieu of e.g. a GC). In an ideal world, Rust's lifetime management would be automatically derived by the compiler (in several cases, when it's simple, it already is). Which is why I don't consider it some new paradigm of how to think about programs or how to structure programs (like OO or FP or logical programming are).
- scott_s 8y ago
  > Not some huge new paradigm shift in how we construct programs I think Rust is exactly that. It makes memory safety a first-class concern for the language. Thinking about it as "fighting the borrow-checker" is like trying to program procedurally in Java, only using classes as holders of static functions, and feeling like you're constantly fighting against objects.
- bluejekyll 8y ago
  > In an ideal world, Rust's lifetime management would be automatically derived by the compiler (in several cases, when it's simple, it already is). This is exactly the type of work that's gone into the language over the last few years. It's actually quite rare with non-lexical lifetimes (and the advancements before it) that you need to explicitly call out the lifetimes anymore. I think the language is moving in the direction you want.

dasloop 8y ago

A junior did an interview with us for a C++ position. At the end he recognized that he had a very superficial knowledge and ask to do the programming test in Java because “programming is programming” (using imperative languages). And then we have developers using C as FORTRAN, C++ as C, Rust as C++... and maybe this will be passable if you are a solo developer but not if you are in a team. Then add knowledge of the ecosystem :)

coldtea 8y ago

> This statement is absurd. It implies that you believe that there are only cosmetic differences between languages, that no language can ever introduce any useful new concepts. Well, the fact that you've missed the whole "Algol-derived language" is more absurd to me. Rust, in the end, is C++-streamlined plus fighting with the borrow checker. Not some huge new paradigm shift in how we construct programs (as would be eg. going from C to Lisp or Idris) -- just making the lifetime aspect of memory management explicit and having the coder handle it (in lieu of e.g. a GC). In an ideal world, Rust's lifetime management would be automatically derived by the compiler (in several cases, when it's simple, it already is). Which is why I don't consider it some new paradigm of how to think about programs or how to structure programs (like OO or FP or logical programming are).

scott_s 8y ago
> Not some huge new paradigm shift in how we construct programs I think Rust is exactly that. It makes memory safety a first-class concern for the language. Thinking about it as "fighting the borrow-checker" is like trying to program procedurally in Java, only using classes as holders of static functions, and feeling like you're constantly fighting against objects.
bluejekyll 8y ago
> In an ideal world, Rust's lifetime management would be automatically derived by the compiler (in several cases, when it's simple, it already is). This is exactly the type of work that's gone into the language over the last few years. It's actually quite rare with non-lexical lifetimes (and the advancements before it) that you need to explicitly call out the lifetimes anymore. I think the language is moving in the direction you want.