3 ms·

See also “Rust out your C” by Carol Nichols: https://github.com/carols10cents/rust-out-your-c-talk https://github.com/carols10cents/rust-out-your-c-talk

discardable_dan 7y ago
At this point, I'm not so much against Rust because it's a difficult or hard thing to use, but because there's such a learning curve I can't, in good conscious, move team projects to it. "To continue to work on this with me, you must first learn Rust" is a hard sell.
- wwright 7y ago
  IMO, this even applies when replacing most C/C++: a lot of that code doesn’t need most of the benefits or C++ or Rust. Often, it’s better to replace it with simpler programs doing less work in Go or JavaScript or Python. I love Rust, but most use cases just don’t need it. The language needs a pretty substantial amount of experience to use, though, so you don’t want just a few Rust programs lying around; no one will have a reason to learn, so they will be even harder to support. Between these, it becomes pretty difficult to find a critical mass of problems that need Rust enough to both justify the cost and to get a decent amount of traction in the company.
- umanwizard 7y ago
  Despite being a Rust fan, I do believe that it is in fact harder to use than nearly all languages, despite the valiant effort of the community to make it as easy to use as possible. Things shouldn’t be ported to Rust willy-nilly, but in its niche (basically: a better C++, because the compiler enforces many of the things you need to keep track of in your head in C++, and also because as many productivity features as are possible without violating “pay-for-what-you-use” too fragrantly are baked in), it can be worth the cost. I am sure some others will disagree with this, but I think using Rust in domains that Python or Java or Awk or Bash is well-suited to is quite silly. For me, Rust competes with C and C++, and little else.

discardable_dan 7y ago

At this point, I'm not so much against Rust because it's a difficult or hard thing to use, but because there's such a learning curve I can't, in good conscious, move team projects to it. "To continue to work on this with me, you must first learn Rust" is a hard sell.

wwright 7y ago
IMO, this even applies when replacing most C/C++: a lot of that code doesn’t need most of the benefits or C++ or Rust. Often, it’s better to replace it with simpler programs doing less work in Go or JavaScript or Python. I love Rust, but most use cases just don’t need it. The language needs a pretty substantial amount of experience to use, though, so you don’t want just a few Rust programs lying around; no one will have a reason to learn, so they will be even harder to support. Between these, it becomes pretty difficult to find a critical mass of problems that need Rust enough to both justify the cost and to get a decent amount of traction in the company.
umanwizard 7y ago
Despite being a Rust fan, I do believe that it is in fact harder to use than nearly all languages, despite the valiant effort of the community to make it as easy to use as possible. Things shouldn’t be ported to Rust willy-nilly, but in its niche (basically: a better C++, because the compiler enforces many of the things you need to keep track of in your head in C++, and also because as many productivity features as are possible without violating “pay-for-what-you-use” too fragrantly are baked in), it can be worth the cost. I am sure some others will disagree with this, but I think using Rust in domains that Python or Java or Awk or Bash is well-suited to is quite silly. For me, Rust competes with C and C++, and little else.