4 ms·

I feel most things in Rust are harder to do, at least at first sight. A compromise for the enhanced safeness I guess. Could give it a try again sometime.

• saghm 7y ago
  In general, it's not the safety alone, but the combination of safety and eschewing implicit runtime costs. It would be 100% safe for Rust to always implicitly box closures; it just wouldn't be as efficient in the cases where boxing them isn't needed.
• taberiand 7y ago
  It seems to me that it's not that Rust is hard, it's that all programming is hard but Rust exposes the complexity so we can make a more informed decision about the trade offs of safety and performance etc, while other languages tend to hide the complexity (null reference, race conditions, etc).
  • rafaelvasco 7y ago
    Yeah. Makes sense. Rust just explicitly exposes certain features so that the programmer has more control.
    • stefs 7y ago
      something i've read times and times again: programmers of other languages who learned rust tend to discover potentially problematic code in their earlier work.
      • hoseja 7y ago
        That's just normal for learning to be a better programmer.
  • efaref 7y ago
    I've found that once you fully get this, Rust is actually easier to write code with. Especially refactoring. You can make sweeping changes to complex code and be satisfied that once it compiles it will most likely work. Fearless refactoring is one of the prime benefits of Rust.
• justwalt 7y ago
  In my experience that’s true. But once you code in it consistently for some appreciable amount of time, you start to think in ways that the compiler will be happy with and that make sense from a safety standpoint. It’s getting to that point that requires a bit of work.
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]