7 ms·
Most benefits of Rust are true, except in some cases it does not allow you to compile an absolutely valid and safe program like here https://github.com/rust-lan
by cyber1 4y ago
Most benefits of Rust are true, except in some cases it does not allow you to compile an absolutely valid and safe program like here https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/47680 https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/47680 - unfortunately you don't have freedom of code design decisions! I see some possible problems with refactoring, extending logic and functionality, and lots of issues with async code design and readability.
For me, Rust looks like a temporary step before the next language.
- pie_flavor 4y agoYou have successfully linked to the only meaningfully loud bug in the borrow checker; declaring that as proof that Rust is a temporary step does not seem like the most cool-headed of evaluations, especially as it will be fixed by a new borrow checker in active development. These assertions are always made, and always alongside information suggesting the speaker has not actually spent very much time using Rust.
- 3836293648 4y agoEh, it might be the only meaningful issue with the borrow checker, but the language itself has more issues than just that. I adore rust and have done for years, but I also see it as a stepping stone language and worry about it gaining too much adoption
- pie_flavor 4y agoIt is a stepping stone language in the sense that nobody has ever done anything like it before but you could adapt some of its principles to a language where you don't have to care quite so much about the stack. (Things you could not jettison along the way include ownership and explicit lifetime annotations.) But the language has absolutely nothing I'd call an issue. Only things that could be made even better, and coincidentally always are.