5 ms·

This comment section is the most absolute proof I've ever seen that absolutely nobody reads the article before commenting. Hint: it's not about integer types a

by skorgu 4y ago

This comment section is the most absolute proof I've ever seen that absolutely nobody reads the article before commenting. Hint: it's not about integer types at all

nhumrich 4y ago
Then please enlighten us and tell us what you feel the article is about rather than a snarky "rtfm" comment. Because I started reading. I got pretty far, and it was _still_ talking about integer types. The article is very long, and I gave up, not having any idea why I should keep reading. So saying the article isnt about them "at all" is wrong. Maybe, the int type thing is an intro to some other thing? But thats a long intro. So, tl;dr, at least not all the way. Why don't you tell us the point so we have desire to actually read it.
- jrimbault 4y ago
  > I hope I was able to show, too, that I don't consider Rust the perfect, be-all-end-all programming language. There's still a bunch of situations where, without the requisite years of messing around, you'll be stuck. Because I'm so often the person of reference to help solve these, at work and otherwise, I just thought I'd put a little something together. [emphasis mine] As you can also see from the table of contents at the top of the article page, it goes through a great breadth of topics. And you can use that table of contents to jump to the afterword.
- Jtsummers 4y ago
  Conveniently, there's a table of contents at the start that hints at the later topics: Different kinds of numbers Conversions and type inference Generics and enums Implementing traits Return position Dynamically-sized types Storing stuff in structs Lifetimes and ownership Slices and arrays Boxed trait objects Reading type signatures Closures Async stuff Async trait methods The Connect trait from hyper Higher-ranked trait bounds Afterword So 17 sections, 16 technical (excluding the Afterword) and only the first two focus on the int/float stuff. So to answer your question: > Maybe, the int type thing is an intro to some other thing? No, it's not an intro, it's just the first two sections.
- skorgu 4y ago
  Since you don't seem to have commented on the article without reading it, my comment was not addressed to you. I'm not the article police; if you find something too long to read, decide not to read it, and move on with your life, we have no quarrel. Honestly, I don't even mind the folks who do comment without reading. Comments are free, do what you like. I just find it mildly hilarious that 100% of the comments are about (the first) 3% of the article.
imaginaryNumb3r 4y ago
Reading all of it is a big ask for a blog post that is this long
- sn9 4y ago
  Then why bother commenting? I don't understand the urge to comment on something one hasn't read.
  - imaginaryNumb3r 4y ago
    I did read the beginning of the article and I wasn't too impressed. So I went through the comments, looking for bits of wisdom that might hint reading the whole article was worth it. Still, I wasn't impressed.
  - happytoexplain 4y ago
    I see multiple people commenting on why they didn't read the whole thing, which is a perfectly valid topic of conversation.
happytoexplain 4y ago
It is categorically about integer/numeric types in part. Why do you feel that "at all" is an appropriate qualifier?

by skorgu 4y ago

This comment section is the most absolute proof I've ever seen that absolutely nobody reads the article before commenting. Hint: it's not about integer types at all

nhumrich 4y ago

Then please enlighten us and tell us what you feel the article is about rather than a snarky "rtfm" comment. Because I started reading. I got pretty far, and it was _still_ talking about integer types. The article is very long, and I gave up, not having any idea why I should keep reading. So saying the article isnt about them "at all" is wrong. Maybe, the int type thing is an intro to some other thing? But thats a long intro. So, tl;dr, at least not all the way. Why don't you tell us the point so we have desire to actually read it.

jrimbault 4y ago
> I hope I was able to show, too, that I don't consider Rust the perfect, be-all-end-all programming language. There's still a bunch of situations where, without the requisite years of messing around, you'll be stuck. Because I'm so often the person of reference to help solve these, at work and otherwise, I just thought I'd put a little something together. [emphasis mine] As you can also see from the table of contents at the top of the article page, it goes through a great breadth of topics. And you can use that table of contents to jump to the afterword.
Jtsummers 4y ago
Conveniently, there's a table of contents at the start that hints at the later topics: Different kinds of numbers Conversions and type inference Generics and enums Implementing traits Return position Dynamically-sized types Storing stuff in structs Lifetimes and ownership Slices and arrays Boxed trait objects Reading type signatures Closures Async stuff Async trait methods The Connect trait from hyper Higher-ranked trait bounds Afterword So 17 sections, 16 technical (excluding the Afterword) and only the first two focus on the int/float stuff. So to answer your question: > Maybe, the int type thing is an intro to some other thing? No, it's not an intro, it's just the first two sections.
skorgu 4y ago
Since you don't seem to have commented on the article without reading it, my comment was not addressed to you. I'm not the article police; if you find something too long to read, decide not to read it, and move on with your life, we have no quarrel. Honestly, I don't even mind the folks who do comment without reading. Comments are free, do what you like. I just find it mildly hilarious that 100% of the comments are about (the first) 3% of the article.

imaginaryNumb3r 4y ago

Reading all of it is a big ask for a blog post that is this long

sn9 4y ago
Then why bother commenting? I don't understand the urge to comment on something one hasn't read.
- imaginaryNumb3r 4y ago
  I did read the beginning of the article and I wasn't too impressed. So I went through the comments, looking for bits of wisdom that might hint reading the whole article was worth it. Still, I wasn't impressed.
- happytoexplain 4y ago
  I see multiple people commenting on why they didn't read the whole thing, which is a perfectly valid topic of conversation.

happytoexplain 4y ago

It is categorically about integer/numeric types in part. Why do you feel that "at all" is an appropriate qualifier?