4 ms·
In other words, do enormously more work, that will then have to be undone, just for lack of a build flag. Nice. Rust absolutely can still fizzle, and certainly
by ncmncm 5y ago
In other words, do enormously more work, that will then have to be undone, just for lack of a build flag. Nice.
Rust absolutely can still fizzle, and certainly will be found to have done, in time, without major improvements in adoption rate. If you have better ideas for that, propose those. The more the better.
Spurious objections to ways to improve adoption favor other languages.
- indiv0 5y agoEh I wouldn’t say enormously. The latter two are hyper powerful but hyper rare because how often is a newbie using threads? The former two are just a method call you add to the offending line when the borrow checker complains, and not a moment sooner. It tells you what’s wrong, you fix it, you move on. It’s no different than forgetting a semicolon in Java. Nothing needs to be undone after. Either those 4 tools get you a valid program or you made a logic mistake you would’ve made in any other language. Or in Rust sans borrow checker. I don’t see how that’s an issue. I don’t see how my methods are spurious objections or how I’ve spuriously objected to anything. My methods are tested, tried, and proven to work on a sample of n=1. All that’s left is government funding and we can start mass human trials next month.
- avgcorrection 5y agoIt has already been demonstrated to you that you just can’t “add a build flag”. Your suggestion is unworkable (no matter how many italicized words you sprinkle in). Adding `.to_owned()` will at least work (see, now I’m doing it too)—however much you may dislike it—and doesn’t suffer from the problem of being a pipe dream. You can try to take your “fizzle” comments to /r/rust. See how many people care about Rust being on its deathbed due to not adopting your misguided suggestion.