3 ms·

The syntax is just hard. I tell new programmers to start with either Python or JavaScript. The pay is the same or better, and it's much easier. I've been prog

The syntax is just hard. I tell new programmers to start with either Python or JavaScript. The pay is the same or better, and it's much easier. I've been programing for almost a decade, I still can't understand lower level languages like Rust and C++. Why, if you can design a new language, not make something with the simplicity of Python ? If your going to compile the binary anyway, have the complier figure out the types and optimize. This is why JavaScript is eating the world. We don't need legions of hardcore software engineers. We need people who use a bit of Python, JavaScript, etc, to make their jobs easier. The future of programing is easier higher level languages. Rust has some applications, but it's too hard for most

mikebenfield 4y ago
Python can be simple, to the degree it is simple, because it makes so many of your decisions for you. In Rust the design space is very large. For instance, if your new type is going to refer to some data, should it own the data, should the data be on the heap (in a box), should it carry a safe reference (if so, mutable or not?), should the data be reference counted, or possibly atomic reference counted, or maybe for some reason you need to keep an unsafe raw pointer to the data? In Python this is simple because the decision is already made for you: your new type keeps (essentially) a reference counted ref to the data it needs. That’s it. That’s all you can do. That’s great if that decision is always adequate for your application. If you need extra flexibility you’ve got a problem.
HKH2 4y ago
> If you're going to compile the binary anyway, have the compiler figure out the types and optimize. Rust does have type inference. I normally only use types explicitly when I'm collecting from an iterator, or when I want simpler error messages. > We need people who use a bit of Python, JavaScript, etc, to make their jobs easier. I am not a programmer, but I use a bit of Rust to make my job easier. > Rust has some applications, but it's too hard for most Debugging scripts is usually harder than debugging Rust, in my experience. Being explicit about things has a lot of benefits in the long run.

mikebenfield 4y ago

Python can be simple, to the degree it is simple, because it makes so many of your decisions for you. In Rust the design space is very large. For instance, if your new type is going to refer to some data, should it own the data, should the data be on the heap (in a box), should it carry a safe reference (if so, mutable or not?), should the data be reference counted, or possibly atomic reference counted, or maybe for some reason you need to keep an unsafe raw pointer to the data? In Python this is simple because the decision is already made for you: your new type keeps (essentially) a reference counted ref to the data it needs. That’s it. That’s all you can do. That’s great if that decision is always adequate for your application. If you need extra flexibility you’ve got a problem.

HKH2 4y ago

> If you're going to compile the binary anyway, have the compiler figure out the types and optimize. Rust does have type inference. I normally only use types explicitly when I'm collecting from an iterator, or when I want simpler error messages. > We need people who use a bit of Python, JavaScript, etc, to make their jobs easier. I am not a programmer, but I use a bit of Rust to make my job easier. > Rust has some applications, but it's too hard for most Debugging scripts is usually harder than debugging Rust, in my experience. Being explicit about things has a lot of benefits in the long run.