4 ms·
This isn't exactly praiseworthy. If a language is so hard to write you can never actually produce a line of code, of course you will write zero bugs.
by patrick451 3y ago
This isn't exactly praiseworthy. If a language is so hard to write you can never actually produce a line of code, of course you will write zero bugs.
- constantcrying 3y agoOf course there is a ballance. But Rust isn't indecipherable nonsense which nobody can grasp. The language forces stronger assumptions about the code (e.g. lifetimes), which allows the compiler to guarantee that certain bugs can not happen.
- cies 3y agoSeems you are not arguing in good faith. What you say is true, but totally irrelevant: language creators are not trying to make useless languages.
- patrick451 3y agoReductio ad absurdum is a valid logical argument. There's nothing bad faith about it.
- lordnacho 3y agoI wouldn't call it bad faith, that's more when someone is evading the actual point. However I doubt anyone hits a wall with rust where they can't get anything written.
- ithkuil 3y agoIf you can learn to use C++ correctly then, with the right time investment and motivation, then you can learn rust without problems. The compiler mostly complains about things you wouldn't do in C++ anyway because it would either crash right now or it would be brittle code that would be easy to break later. I knew enough C++ when I learned rust that I never perceived the lifetimes to be something that gets in the way. My major pain points were: * Leaning a new standard library, the names of common functions and common tasks to do things like handling strings, iterators etc. Nothing weird, just lots of new stuff to learn * figuring out which libraries outside the stdlib are actually a de-facto stdlib that it's ok to just use/build around (assert_matches, bytes, ...) * endless despair of async rust. Anyway you need to compare apples to apples, with the total cesspool that c++ coroutines are