3 ms·

This discussion exists for any programming language that qualifies for the label "useful for 1 or more tasks".

• ajross 3y ago
  Not at this level of pontification. Python and C and Java and .NET have achieved much success without this kind of "the community can't decide on the right way to do this very fundamental thing[1]" kind of disconnect, largely by scoping themselves such that the tradeoffs are made internally to the language runtime and not a subject for debate. And, fine, Rust is more ambitious, just like C++ was. But that too has tradeoffs in language complexity and evolutionary cruft, something that is often cited as an advantage vs. C++. But as we're seeing here, it's not really. It's just that C++ is a few decades farther along on the same curve. [1] In this case, literally, how to handle a runtime error.
  • burntsushi 3y ago
    This is absurd. The community has decided. Go look at any popular Rust library. The panicking strategy will be the same in all of them: if a panic actually occurs at runtime, it's considered a bug. But libraries still use unwrap in the same way asserts are used. I've asked many people to show me real Rust code that does it differently, and I haven't found any takers. The confusion here is mostly in terminology and in the "peanut gallery." This has literally been a solved problem since Rust 1.0. I know because I was there and published a blog post on exactly this topic.