6 ms·
Another great book that is completely free and open source. Rust might be a little harder to learn then other languages but you can't deny that it has great res
by bibyte 8y ago
Another great book that is completely free and open source. Rust might be a little harder to learn then other languages but you can't deny that it has great resources if you decide to learn it.
- adamnemecek 8y agoI wouldn’t say harder, like learning c++ well (patterns + concurrency etc) is legit hard. Same for other languages. Rust has surprisingly few concepts, it’s just that they combine nicely.
- jayd16 8y agoIt's harder like people think static typing is hard. It's more about how many concepts you need to be aware of to write something. Garbage collection is a complex topic you can ignore at first, for example. Rust pointer management takes immediate investment. Even freeing pointers you can be lazy about at first. Rust makes it easier to write good code at the cost of making it hard to write bad code.
- mjw1007 8y agoI find myself able to deny that it has great resources. The reference manual is very weak.
- steveklabnik 8y agoIt’s going to be a big area of work this year!
- jake_the_third 8y agoThis is really good news. Hopefully a more well-developed and thorough reference will allow for a GCC rust frontend to be developed.
- steveklabnik 8y agoI don't think that that's really the blocker there, afterall, mrustc exists. That said, maybe it will give someone enough confidence to step up and do the work, I dunno. We'll see!
- whatshisface 8y agoThe Rust documentation is deep but not wide: unlike Python (for example) the standard library is small, which means that the well-documented area is small. Almost as soon as you try to get anything done, you will end up reading auto-generated function signature docs and browsing through the source code of whatever crate you want to use. This is true for scientific computing and game libraries, and may not be true for networking which I hear is very well-developed. Because Rust's type system is so good, auto-generated function signatures are actually pretty useful. However this is one area in which the language is clearly immature.
- melling 8y agoThat's what Perl programmers used to say about Python. It couldn't compete with the CPAN library. While a large set of libraries is helpful, I wouldn't let that stop you if you think Rust is a good fit for your problem.
- dnautics 8y agoTo be honest, python libraries are wide but the documentation quality isn't always the best (I could be spoiled)
- cpach 8y ago”documentation quality isn't always the best” Compared to what? (Asking just out of curiosity.)
- 4thaccount 8y agoIn general, I find Perl's CPAN to usually have really good documentation that surpasses what Python has, even though I prefer Python over Perl nine times out of ten.
- kbenson 8y agoAs a full time Perl developer, I've wondered more than once if this is due to the way the way the language shapes the community. Perl has evolved (out of necessity) a very strong level of norms and best practices that users are aware of, and put effort into following (well, most the time, Perl is all about letting you pull out the shiny weirdness and letting it shine where it fits well). Module documentation is part of this. A module could implement an object oriented interface, a procedural interface, both, import function into the main scope on use, or on request, or any number of weird (and depending on your point of view wonderful) things. Not having good documentation means nobody knows how to use your module without a lot of work reading the code. So modules get documented or they get ignored. Thus, the modules on CPAN you know about and that are commonly used and relied on by other modules are the ones that have good documentation. It's self reinforcing. I imagine in a language that funnels use into a single or small set of idiomatic ways to accomplish most tasks, it might be easier to skimp on documentation and rely on people to fall back on the "obvious" way to things.