3 ms·

I was happy to see this as well. As a 'seasoned' C++ dev myself, when I learned Rust, I was pleasantly surprised to see those implicit concepts made explicit i

• monocasa 4y ago
  Same. I think that I didn't go through the Rc<RefCell> phase that so many new to Rust go through because of C++ teaching me the same lessons in a much more brutal way. By the time I got to Rust I had learned to structure my code to sort of use pointers/references as capabilities, such that simply having knowledge of the bit pattern of the pointer was implicit access through that pointer since as a codebase evolves someone will keep pointers around or not go through.whatever song and dance you need to do to keep accesses through that pointer valid. That thought process translates very well to Rust.
  • techdragon 4y ago
    What I love about Rust is what I love about Python… “explicit is better than implicit” When I open something up to read it, to try and understand it, to dig in and fix something broken… having everything be exposed in the explicitly written code… is vastly more useful to me than trying to mentally interpret a language as I read it and remember the rules, the meta-programming rules… and all the implicit stuff that can affect how the program will behave. Lot of programming languages aren’t good at this explicitness, and I’ll be honest, it’s a genuine struggle for me picking up the languages like this, only made worse when the documentation is very prose like and fails to convey how anything actually works, eschewing that in favour of, at length, demonstrating the feel of a programming language through countless demonstration example that lack mechanical “what is this doing under the hood” explanation.