3 ms·
> I'm curious why you think it's too big to master. Many of us do find Rust very hard to get to grips with, however much we're informed by Rust advocates that
by aussiesnack 4y ago
> I'm curious why you think it's too big to master.
Many of us do find Rust very hard to get to grips with, however much we're informed by Rust advocates that it isn't! I don't know if there's any readily available way to be objective about this? I think all we have is attestation. Here's Chris Keathley (of some Elixir fame):
> I've written a non-trivial amount of Rust code (50-100k lines) .. and I feel like I barely understand Rust as a language
I don't think that's an uncommon perspective.
- kibwen 4y agoIt's entirely reasonable to have trouble getting to grips with Rust, as ownership and borrowing are quite different paradigms compared to the usual mainstream languages that people tend to know. But there's no way to write "50k lines" of Rust without saying that you understand the language, so I'm baffled by what the author is trying to imply there. If you don't understand the language, then you won't even make it to 1k lines.
- aussiesnack 4y agoI didn't find anything tricky about the ownership model. The last two languages I learned were Clojure then Elixir, both of which had far more concepts novel to me (with no experience in Lisps nor functional languages), yet neither gave me the trouble Rust has. Frankly your response is typical of the smugness I find with Rust advocates. You 'know' Rust isn't complex (perhaps because of your own experience). When people say they find it so, you consider it your role to inform them about how they are mistaken about their own experience.