4 ms·

Yeah it seems to be a pretty niche use case. The learning curve for Rust is simply too high (my GOD the syntax). You can just get much more done, in less time w

Yeah it seems to be a pretty niche use case. The learning curve for Rust is simply too high (my GOD the syntax). You can just get much more done, in less time with a web framework. I looked into Rust for writing games (including the UI frameworks), but found that the power it provides isn't really worth all the mental overhead. Most games don't really need that much power, particularly if you are using non-realistic graphics. In the event that you do actually need extra optimization, most engines let you hook down into C++ for raw performance.

alpaca128 3y ago
> The learning curve for Rust is simply too high (my GOD the syntax) The syntax isn't even close to being a difficult part of the language, and it's something you get used to very quickly. The Rust syntax just isn't readable for people who don't yet know Rust, just like I find C++ difficult to read. > You can just get much more done, in less time with a web framework. Sure, you can also get it running even quicker in Python. But when it comes to maintenance I prefer something where the type system wasn't just slapped on top. That said the web does feel like the only fully-featured and truly cross-platform GUI at the moment.
- pkolaczk 3y ago
  This is a matter of familiarity. For example, Golang is claimed to have simple syntax, but I find Golang's syntax much harder to read than Rust. The fact they avoided keywords and symbols like a plague caused that now e.g. function signatures are mostly names, spaces and parentheses, and the meaning of them depends on their relative positions, which is something I'm not used to. I guess if I wrote / read Golang sources more frequently, that would become a second nature and would not slow me down.
  - crispinb 3y ago
    > This is a matter of familiarity No it is not. Or at least not for everyone. I have learned several languages more unfamiliar to me than Rust (pure functional, logic, stack-oriented,etc), but none has given me the difficulties Rust has. Also (only my sample of course, but there are no reliable stats) no-one I personally know who has gone through the Rust book has continued with Rust. The Rust Foundation hasn't made 'flattening the learning curve' one of its 2024 goals because people don't find Rust harder than other languages. Many just do. A false universal doesn't become true through brute repetition.
    - zkldi 3y ago
      can i ask what kind of things you specifically found confusing about the syntax?
      - crispinb 3y ago
        I don't have a problem with Rust syntax. Actually I can't imagine any developer with more than a year or two's experience has much trouble with any language syntax (unless it's something truly weird like APL). After a few days use you barely notice surface details anyway - it's just one possible representation of an AST. My problem with using Rust is the way its complexity creeps into everything. There are large numbers of stdlib utility traits whose idiomatic use you have to remember to read almost any real world code. There's hardly a Rust library in common use that isn't a huge sprawling mass of over abstracted generics and macros. Even command line parsing is made to be a vastly complex endeavour. There are admittedly sugary niceties (eg derive attributes) that can make use of many of these libraries tractable for easy cases. But overall any substantial Rust program makes cognitive and memory demands on the programmer far in excess of what most languages require for the equivalent in my experience.
        alpaca128 3y ago
        I can agree with that, I don't like overly abstract stuff either. That said in my projects I'm in control of the code and so I tend to avoid traits where they're not really necessary, I find Rust very pleasant to use that way and the compiler messages are simply outstanding. Often lifetime annotations can be replaced with heap allocations, which isn't always that efficient but it's a damn fast language and often you're not even going to measure a difference. > Even command line parsing is made to be a vastly complex endeavour. Yes, I even wrote a library for that once but then realized it only complicates everything and adds limitations. Nowadays I just do that by hand. For one it's guaranteed to be shorter than any parsing library, but also it's a good opportunity to think about what kind of arguments I need and in which form. And copy-pasting the parser from the previous project and adapting it is quick & easy.
        3y ago

alpaca128 3y ago

> The learning curve for Rust is simply too high (my GOD the syntax) The syntax isn't even close to being a difficult part of the language, and it's something you get used to very quickly. The Rust syntax just isn't readable for people who don't yet know Rust, just like I find C++ difficult to read. > You can just get much more done, in less time with a web framework. Sure, you can also get it running even quicker in Python. But when it comes to maintenance I prefer something where the type system wasn't just slapped on top. That said the web does feel like the only fully-featured and truly cross-platform GUI at the moment.

pkolaczk 3y ago
This is a matter of familiarity. For example, Golang is claimed to have simple syntax, but I find Golang's syntax much harder to read than Rust. The fact they avoided keywords and symbols like a plague caused that now e.g. function signatures are mostly names, spaces and parentheses, and the meaning of them depends on their relative positions, which is something I'm not used to. I guess if I wrote / read Golang sources more frequently, that would become a second nature and would not slow me down.
- crispinb 3y ago
  > This is a matter of familiarity No it is not. Or at least not for everyone. I have learned several languages more unfamiliar to me than Rust (pure functional, logic, stack-oriented,etc), but none has given me the difficulties Rust has. Also (only my sample of course, but there are no reliable stats) no-one I personally know who has gone through the Rust book has continued with Rust. The Rust Foundation hasn't made 'flattening the learning curve' one of its 2024 goals because people don't find Rust harder than other languages. Many just do. A false universal doesn't become true through brute repetition.
  - zkldi 3y ago
    can i ask what kind of things you specifically found confusing about the syntax?
    - crispinb 3y ago
      I don't have a problem with Rust syntax. Actually I can't imagine any developer with more than a year or two's experience has much trouble with any language syntax (unless it's something truly weird like APL). After a few days use you barely notice surface details anyway - it's just one possible representation of an AST. My problem with using Rust is the way its complexity creeps into everything. There are large numbers of stdlib utility traits whose idiomatic use you have to remember to read almost any real world code. There's hardly a Rust library in common use that isn't a huge sprawling mass of over abstracted generics and macros. Even command line parsing is made to be a vastly complex endeavour. There are admittedly sugary niceties (eg derive attributes) that can make use of many of these libraries tractable for easy cases. But overall any substantial Rust program makes cognitive and memory demands on the programmer far in excess of what most languages require for the equivalent in my experience.
      - alpaca128 3y ago
        I can agree with that, I don't like overly abstract stuff either. That said in my projects I'm in control of the code and so I tend to avoid traits where they're not really necessary, I find Rust very pleasant to use that way and the compiler messages are simply outstanding. Often lifetime annotations can be replaced with heap allocations, which isn't always that efficient but it's a damn fast language and often you're not even going to measure a difference. > Even command line parsing is made to be a vastly complex endeavour. Yes, I even wrote a library for that once but then realized it only complicates everything and adds limitations. Nowadays I just do that by hand. For one it's guaranteed to be shorter than any parsing library, but also it's a good opportunity to think about what kind of arguments I need and in which form. And copy-pasting the parser from the previous project and adapting it is quick & easy.
        3y ago