4 ms·
I'm biased as a Rust fan, but I don't think this is accurate. I think this impression comes from people who don't know Rust reading the release notes and assumi
by oconnor663 4y ago
I'm biased as a Rust fan, but I don't think this is accurate. I think this impression comes from people who don't know Rust reading the release notes and assuming that the rate of new features must mean the language is full of old legacy junk that no one recommends using anymore. But there are actually very few things like that in standard Rust. (The old `try` macro and the `ref` keyword are two examples. std::sync::mpsc is maybe another.) A large portion of the changes have been fleshing out APIs and removing limitations, which arguably makes the language less complicated over time. "Nonlexical lifetimes" and "match ergonomics" are two examples of this, which each took a lot of work.
- bmitc 4y agoThanks to you and the other commenter. It seems my perception of the timeline is indeed incorrect, although I'm not sure my view of its complexity is. I have found it difficult to dive into but want to give it another whirl here at some point.
- oconnor663 4y agoThere's definitely a learning curve, no doubt about that. I usually advise learners to expect to read a book. It doesn't have to be The Book, and there are several other good ones to choose from, but expect a book. For most people, learning from examples and compiler errors isn't the way to go. If you happen to be coming from a C++ background, here's a shameless plug for my own intro video :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPmRDS0OSxM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPmRDS0OSxM