3 ms·
That's true only in comparison to languages with manual memory management. Higher level languages spare you the burden of being conscious about these things, wh
by wk_end 4y ago
That's true only in comparison to languages with manual memory management. Higher level languages spare you the burden of being conscious about these things, which means Rust is naturally going to be more difficult to work with than, oh, I dunno, Ocaml.
From the other direction, coming from low-level languages: the other problem is that Rust's type system isn't powerful enough to express certain things that you, a competent C programmer, might be fully conscious of...and so you end up needing to fight the type system to get it understand something you're already aware of. To use a classic example, you can understand exactly how the lifetimes work in a doubly linked list but still find it more painful to write in Rust than in C.
- jmartin2683 4y agoMemory things, sure. There is the whole concurrency/parallelism thing, though.
- moldavi 4y agoPony is a great example of fearless concurrency without the borrow checker's difficulties.
- fredrikholm 4y agoIt's a shame how seldom this language comes up in discussions, I toyed around with a few years back and it was wonderful even back then. Happy to see that it's getting frequent commits, would love to see it become more popular.