4 ms·

> I think bringing Rust into Linux was a really bad idea. IMO Rust has yet to prove it isn’t another overly complicated C++ waiting to make projects almost inc

> I think bringing Rust into Linux was a really bad idea. IMO Rust has yet to prove it isn’t another overly complicated C++ waiting to make projects almost incomprehensible to understand. Isn't that already the case? Rust now is very different from Rust in the early days and is also exponentially more unintuitive. Maybe that's fine, I don't know, but I'm personally very much struggling with its quirks.

kibwen 4y ago
What early days is this referring to? In any case, regardless of one's opinions on Rust's overall difficulty, I find it difficult to argue that the language's ergonomics have done anything but improve over time.
- sanxiyn 4y ago
  With addition of async Rust, I think it is easy to argue that difficulty of understanding average idiomatic Rust code in fact increased over time.
  - kibwen 4y ago
    Considering that async-equivalent code was done via callbacks prior to async/await, I find this argument hard to swallow.
biorach 4y ago
> Rust now is very different from Rust in the early days Rust pre 1.0 kinda doesn't count. The whole point of 1.0 is that there is a guarantee that there will be no more dramatic changes to the language. > exponentially more unintuitive Almost nothing about any programming language is really intuitive. You mean that C uses paradigms that are intuitive to you due to your experience with it or similar languages. Rust uses different paradigms that are more immediately intuitive to people with experience in functional languages. And the borrow checker. Which is probably immediately intuitive to nobody, but worth it.
rowanG077 4y ago
I feel like Rust is pretty much as intuitive as C. Which is too say. Not intuitive at all. With the exception of pure FP languages I haven't even seen a language that is really intuitive.

4 ms·

> I think bringing Rust into Linux was a really bad idea. IMO Rust has yet to prove it isn’t another overly complicated C++ waiting to make projects almost inc

by rjzzleep 4y ago

kibwen 4y ago
What early days is this referring to? In any case, regardless of one's opinions on Rust's overall difficulty, I find it difficult to argue that the language's ergonomics have done anything but improve over time.
- sanxiyn 4y ago
  With addition of async Rust, I think it is easy to argue that difficulty of understanding average idiomatic Rust code in fact increased over time.
  - kibwen 4y ago
    Considering that async-equivalent code was done via callbacks prior to async/await, I find this argument hard to swallow.
biorach 4y ago
> Rust now is very different from Rust in the early days Rust pre 1.0 kinda doesn't count. The whole point of 1.0 is that there is a guarantee that there will be no more dramatic changes to the language. > exponentially more unintuitive Almost nothing about any programming language is really intuitive. You mean that C uses paradigms that are intuitive to you due to your experience with it or similar languages. Rust uses different paradigms that are more immediately intuitive to people with experience in functional languages. And the borrow checker. Which is probably immediately intuitive to nobody, but worth it.
rowanG077 4y ago
I feel like Rust is pretty much as intuitive as C. Which is too say. Not intuitive at all. With the exception of pure FP languages I haven't even seen a language that is really intuitive.