5 ms·
I think that is correct, but I also find Rust to be an unfriendly language and this is a very widespread problem in software engineering: our tools are generall
by blub 6y ago
I think that is correct, but I also find Rust to be an unfriendly language and this is a very widespread problem in software engineering: our tools are generally over-complicated and people are expected to just deal with it as a sort of hazing ritual. We've also come to associate one's worth as a programmer with how many of these arcane and opaque tools they can master.
It's much easier to invent a complicated tool and come up with excuses about why all the complexity was required than to invent a tool which makes people happy and productive. Of course some people are rather weird and they're happy with baffling tools, but I'm talking here about the majority. Garbage collection is the kind of invention which freed countless programmers from having to painstakingly worry about memory management. It's not perfect, as it doesn't handle all resources, but it is doubtlessly a step in the right direction.
Now if you look at Rust, their solution to memory management is to force the programmer to add countless annotations so that the unintelligent compiler can figure out what's happening. This is a step in the wrong direction and I certainly hope that this is only a local optimum that will be surpassed, otherwise the future of system programming looks quite sad.
- mplanchard 6y agoFWIW, I’ve written lots of Rust, and I’ve only had to use lifetime annotations (which is what I assume you’re talking about) a few times. The vast majority of the time the compiler allows you to elide lifetimes.