2 ms·
> but in order to manage memory the way the borrow checker wants, the programmer is at best tempted, and at worst forced, to add complexity to the program. Thi
by rapsey 7y ago
> but in order to manage memory the way the borrow checker wants, the programmer is at best tempted, and at worst forced, to add complexity to the program.
This is a problem for newcomers because they have to adapt their way of thinking into Rust way of thinking. Once one develops a set of patterns and principles this is not an issue.
Companies who have large codebases in Rust tend to have praise for it enabling solutions that are much easier to reason with and work on then if they were developed in C++.
It is obvious the author has little to no experience in developing production software in Rust.
- chiefsucker 7y ago> It is obvious the author has little to no experience in developing production software in Rust. Statements like these don’t necessarily speak for the user-friendliness of Rust or Rust itself. Safety? OK, cool. But for what cost?
- jacobr1 7y agoI think the cost is roughly: "we force you to reason about, and account for safety in the code." Then given that this is now explicitly forced upon the developer, are Rust's constructs overly complex, or reasonably once someone gets over the learning curve? The alternative is using a managed runtime, which probably should be the default for most programmers. But for those that are doing systems programming, we absolutely need something "like Rust." The memory access patterns need to be explicit.
- unlinked_dll 7y agoPersonally I think the type system (via traits and genetics) makes it really easy to build abstractions with low costs and friendly APIs, which makes composing good software that runs faster much easier. There seems to be a class of developer that's been brainwashed into thinking generic programming is bad. It's pretty damn great when your type system is well designed.