3 ms·
Really happy to see these results on the perception of googlers on quality of the Rust compiler errors, an area I'm highly passionate about. I'd like to take th
by estebank 3y ago
Really happy to see these results on the perception of googlers on quality of the Rust compiler errors, an area I'm highly passionate about. I'd like to take this as an opportunity to encourage the 9% (and the other 91% as well) to file tickets when we don't meet the bar we've set for ourselves.
- nmlt 3y agoI haven’t tried debugging with lldb in some time so I don’t know whether it has improved significantly, but couldn’t the 9% also include that?
- estebank 3y agoIt could be the case. There are multiple separate efforts to improve the debugging experience in production (improving monitoring, cheap profiling, improving logging, encoding more info in the DWARF output), but all of those will take some time to reach the same level of quality that, for example, Java has today.
- sanxiyn 3y agoI am somewhat pessimistic because LLVM is significantly behind GCC in debug information quality (for example, see https://robert.ocallahan.org/2018/11/comparing-quality-of-debug-information.html https://robert.ocallahan.org/2018/11/comparing-quality-of-de...) and there is limit to what Rust can do about it short of fixing LLVM.
- larsberg 3y agoThanks for all of your work (in addition to that of others) - it really shows! We do encourage people to create minimal repro cases and open bugs whenever possible. And, even more ideally, to consider contributing a PR upstream...
- WaffleIronMaker 3y agoI'm a junior developer learning Rust, and I just want to say thank you for all of the work you've put into making the errors high quality. It makes learning the language such a better experience.