4 ms·
The problem with this article is that the first example is wrong, as in it compiles fine. I could even tell without running it that it would compile. Therefore
by jjpe 6y ago
The problem with this article is that the first example is wrong, as in it compiles fine. I could even tell without running it that it would compile.
Therefore the article as a whole cannot be taken seriously, and reflecting that I stopped reading it immediately after.
- steveklabnik 6y agoIt used to not work, and it does acknowledge that it does work now. You missed that since you bounced, which is why it's a good idea to fully digest a thing before deciding if it's terrible or not.
- jjpe 6y agoOr the author should/could improve their writing style. Just a thought. One concrete improvement would be not to moan about things that aren't even true (anymore).
- bsagdiyev 6y agoThank you! There seems to be a fair amount of people who, when disproving a single thing in a list, seem to take that as reason to invalidate the rest of the list and reaffirm whatever their belief (bias, desire, ??) is instead.
- jjpe 6y agoLike someone said above, who has time to wade through all the verbal feces before deciding that an article is worth the time? In this day and age, you need to decide quickly, or you'll be wasting a lot of your time. Now I don't know about you, but my time is valuable.
- bsagdiyev 6y agoSomeone who isn’t ignorant has time to do it. I don’t pass over reading just because I can disprove a single portion. I value my time, but also my ability to digest and understand all viewpoints regardless of my actual views on them. I suggest you try and do the same.
- jjpe 6y agoIgnorance and having time are 2 orthogonal things. Your argument is not even close to valid. And I haven't even mentioned the ad hominem, which is an automatic disqualifier for any argument.
- bsagdiyev 6y agoYou’re obviously too intelligent for me, what a zinger. This sort of mental gymnastics you play is really detrimental to long term happiness, but to each their own.
- vinceguidry 6y agoI mean, there's not taking it seriously, then there's taking to social media to bash it in the comments. If you're going to do that, then at least take the time to digest it. You don't have to inflict your willful ignorance on to others.
- jjpe 6y agoI'm not doing that at all. I'm merely saying it isn't worth the time.
- gilmi 6y agoLet's be real, life is too short to read every article on the internet before deciding if it's worth your time.
- axaxs 6y agoAbsolutely. But if you make that decision, why waste more time commenting on it? I don't mean this to be negative, just food for thought.
- jjpe 6y agoGenerally I don't do this (go ahead, have yourself a google). But the error was so blatant that I just couldn't not say anything about it. In a sense the article baited me into it.
- steveklabnik 6y agoIt depends on your goals, and yes, I do agree that life is too short to read everything. But if you don't have the time to fully digest what's written, you also don't have the time to trash talk it, in my humble opinion. That's what I mean by "deciding if it's terrible or not," that is, I see a personal distinction between "did not pique my interest enough to bother" and "this is actively bad." You have to actually read the whole thing to make the latter determination, IMHO.
- jjpe 6y agoWell in all fairness, I might've kept reading had it not been for that blatant factual error.
- estebank 6y agoJust to add some context: the code works since 1.36 for 2015 edition code when NLL was deemed fully compatible to backport it to older code[1][2], released on July of 2019[3], and since 1.31[4] with the stable introduction of the 2018 edition back in December of 2018[5]. [1]: https://godbolt.org/z/er3zT6 https://godbolt.org/z/er3zT6 [2]: https://godbolt.org/z/zKPao4 https://godbolt.org/z/zKPao4 [3]: https://blog.rust-lang.org/2019/07/04/Rust-1.36.0.html#nll-for-rust-2015 https://blog.rust-lang.org/2019/07/04/Rust-1.36.0.html#nll-f... [4]: https://godbolt.org/z/WKczbv https://godbolt.org/z/WKczbv [5]: https://blog.rust-lang.org/2018/12/06/Rust-1.31-and-rust-2018.html#non-lexical-lifetimes https://blog.rust-lang.org/2018/12/06/Rust-1.31-and-rust-201...