3 ms·
> Rust, the language, is more complex. People take advantage of the complexity and implement all sorts of macros and templates. I'd say you pay for the comple
by shaunsingh0207 4y ago
> Rust, the language, is more complex. People take advantage of the complexity and implement all sorts of macros and templates.
I'd say you pay for the complexity when you learn the language. Once satisfying the borrow checker becomes second nature, it feels just as fast to write as go (in my opinion, after switching from go to rust for most of my scratchpad code)
- konart 4y ago> most of my scratchpad code How about the code written for commercial purposes? As in "you have to write a service that satisfies business requirements and you have to finish by time T"
- klodolph 4y agoI think it does depend on the kind of code you are writing. I also think it is a bit of a cop-out to say that "once satisfying the borrow checker becomes second nature"... maybe I just write different code from you, but I periodically run into really thorny situations in Rust where figuring out how to satisfy the borrow checker is difficult. This happens most often in application programming, it's not something that I really run into when I'm writing libraries. Really core stuff is nice to write in Rust. Parsers, core algorithms, that kind of thing. However, I write a lot of code in Go that does stuff like glue together libraries, call APIs, etc. That stuff is really nice to use in Go. I'd also say that when I need to use a library in Rust, it's a coin-flip whether the library has a straightforward interface, or whether it is some monster with tons of template parameters, or maybe even a bunch of macro rules that you are supposed to use. Go libraries tend to be much simpler to use than Rust libraries.
- erik_seaberg 4y agoAnd you’re going to amortize what you learned over years. A short learning curve is like a toolbox that’s nearly empty.