4 ms·
> Rust is anything but easy and simple like Go language. Rust sure isn't "simple" for anyone, but if you are a C/C++ developer, I'd definitely expect someone w
by hnarn 6y ago
> Rust is anything but easy and simple like Go language.
Rust sure isn't "simple" for anyone, but if you are a C/C++ developer, I'd definitely expect someone who's been writing C code for more than a few years to be able to pick up basic Rust in a few weeks.
Instead of being threatened by other languages and rationalizing why it's not worth picking up, why not spend a few weeks on it so you can have an informed opinion on why it's good or bad?
No language is perfect, everybody knows that. Rust isn't for every use case just like C, PHP or Python isn't for every use case -- but knowing a little bit about all of them means you'll be a better programmer in the end, because you can recognize what tool fits best for the job.
- jevgeni 6y agoI think lifetimes are tripping dragonsh up. Also, C++ is a waaay more quirky and complex language. Can't see why C++'s complexity is fine, but Rust's (lower) complexity isn't.
- shpongled 6y agoYeah I honestly never get these threads. I think perhaps it's C++ veterans that have the language spec memorized, and so they have forgotten that C++ is an absolute minefield and has a much steeper learning curve. I've been using Rust for 3+ years, and while it has a learning curve wrt lifetimes, it's nowhere near as hard to learn as C++ IMO. I recently tried to pick up C++ (yes, I know, weird to have gone to Rust prior to C++), and I finally just gave up and went back to Rust because nothing works how I would expect it to. There are so many edge cases and weird things you have to know to use C++ effectively. Also add in the fact that you still need to learn lifetimes in C or C++, except now you are responsible for tracking them rather than the compiler.