3 ms·
I know someone working on a materials science PhD. He might have to learn python. I could more easily recommend Rust if there were, say, different flavors of
by lcall 4y ago
I know someone working on a materials science PhD. He might have to learn python. I could more easily recommend Rust if there were, say, different flavors of Rust, that allow learning the "hard stuff" in stages, but starting with one that uses garbage collection by default. Then, instead of learning python and maybe having to re-learn Rust later--I realize this is less likely, but still--to save time overall, he could learn the "intro level" of Rust now, and expand his Rust skills as need arises, without ever having to restart from scratch to learn a new language, new libraries, etc.
In other words, a step-by-step developer growth process from simple to hard, maybe 2-4 levels, governed by a Cargo.toml setting probably (comparable to a compiler switch), and you never have to throw away what you already learned. Like maybe "learn once, do anything".
(Yes, compatibility with peer group is probably a larger factor. But as an option for some where it fits.)
- zozbot234 4y agoIs the lack of GC that much of a showstopper for novice learners? If all they're writing is toy programs, they might as well use Rc<...> and accept that cycles will leak.
- lcall 4y agoMy general impression is that it is, for many. Rust definitely has a reputation for being harder to learn than Python, for example, which is what I'm suggesting be fixed for one "step" of Rust. The ownership, borrowing, and lifetimes are a hurdle for someone who is almost certainly not going to be a full-time programmer, but needs to program sometimes, and more than toy programs. I think even Rc might be a barrier, because it looks like more complexity than Pythonistas expect.