5 ms·

And only 2 years later Rust 1.0 was released with a borrow checker (which is not mentioned in the blog post). I think one of the reasons why Rust turned out to

And only 2 years later Rust 1.0 was released with a borrow checker (which is not mentioned in the blog post). I think one of the reasons why Rust turned out to be so well-designed is that Rust has a very open development approach where people with many different experiences can share their wisdom. Many other languages follow the design of a few people, but Rust is really a language of the internet community.

faitswulff 3y ago
> I think one of the reasons why Rust turned out to be so well-designed is that Rust has a very open development approach where people with many different experiences can share their wisdom. Probably also why Rust has such highly publicized drama, as well. The drama is out in the open, too.
- mhh__ 3y ago
  [flagged]
brabel 3y ago
I don't agree. Before Rust 1.0 the community was really, really tiny. I don't have numbers but it was really a few people discussing the design issues... it was not like now where you literally have thousands of people with different incentives trying to force their views on things, which makes development go much slower than in the pre-1.0 days. I think the lesson is that, as with any software, having an open discussion between people who are on the same page about things and have similar incentives (with room for disagreements, as the initial author of Rust had plenty of) is greatly beneficial, without a doubt... but once you start getting people with polar opposite views on things, each backed by a substantial faction behind them, things start getting messy. I'm not saying this has happened in Rust, just that it's not a case the more people, the merrier.
- lagniappe 3y ago
  I'm sure it'd be different for everyone reading this, but for me this story reinforces my hunch that the BDFL model moves faster and satisfies more people, in the sense that its hard to design by committee and harder to satisfy everyone.
scoopr 3y ago
I would like to link Graydon's post on how the language turned out in his view, as it seems relevant: https://graydon2.dreamwidth.org/307291.html https://graydon2.dreamwidth.org/307291.html
tensor 3y ago
I don't feel that Rust is actually well designed. The borrow checker and lack of GC makes it well suited to the tasks that traditionally one would use C or C++ for, and it is definitely safer than those language. But in terms of overall design it doesn't feel very cohesive, and priority is put in odd places. For example, error handling is an area where people almost always resort to 3rd party libraries. That, to me, having to rely on third party libraries for such basic features is a sign of a serious design flaw. Meanwhile, "clever" things like zero cost map and filter are prioritized and in the language for a long time. Overall it feels like a language that prioritizes "clever" features at the expense of boring but basic needs. Also any criticism is met with hostility rather than accommodation. It's a fine language, but I can't say that I love it.
- rhodysurf 3y ago
  I would consider error handling in rust my favorite of all the lanuages i use by a long margin, im not sure how it would be improved. Python I have to try catch, JS i have to try catch, C++ i have to try catch, Go I need more boilerplate than rust. Swift is close to rust, but without the Map Error logic its less ergonomic.
  - tensor 3y ago
    An incredibly typical scenario is that a function makes several calls that each have their own error. E.g. maybe initialize the database and a web server. If you want this function to return an error that encompasses any of the sub-error types you are forced to write the most incredible amount of boilerplate that I've ever seen in a language. You need to define a composite error type and then implement all the required traits for it. I'm not sure how some people avoid this situation, but it's an incredibly common scenario and the only reasonable solution is to use a library like anyhow. Defining your own errors is also heavily boilerplate prone giving rise to things like thiserror. Why these third party libraries are not made into first class language features is beyond me, but it is an example of very poor design and is typical of what I mean. Rust implemented a solid error handling core, but then just didn't bother with the things that would make the error handling actually good. Fancy over pragmatic.
bachmeier 3y ago
> Rust has a very open development approach where people with many different experiences can share their wisdom Interesting take, but as someone that drifted away from Rust with the publication of the linked blog post, and wrote their last meaningful code in the language a year later, it does not describe my experience. YMMV, but compared to other languages, I'd say as a first approximation that they had no interest in comments from outside the inner circle.

faitswulff 3y ago

> I think one of the reasons why Rust turned out to be so well-designed is that Rust has a very open development approach where people with many different experiences can share their wisdom. Probably also why Rust has such highly publicized drama, as well. The drama is out in the open, too.

mhh__ 3y ago
[flagged]

brabel 3y ago

I don't agree. Before Rust 1.0 the community was really, really tiny. I don't have numbers but it was really a few people discussing the design issues... it was not like now where you literally have thousands of people with different incentives trying to force their views on things, which makes development go much slower than in the pre-1.0 days. I think the lesson is that, as with any software, having an open discussion between people who are on the same page about things and have similar incentives (with room for disagreements, as the initial author of Rust had plenty of) is greatly beneficial, without a doubt... but once you start getting people with polar opposite views on things, each backed by a substantial faction behind them, things start getting messy. I'm not saying this has happened in Rust, just that it's not a case the more people, the merrier.

lagniappe 3y ago
I'm sure it'd be different for everyone reading this, but for me this story reinforces my hunch that the BDFL model moves faster and satisfies more people, in the sense that its hard to design by committee and harder to satisfy everyone.

scoopr 3y ago

I would like to link Graydon's post on how the language turned out in his view, as it seems relevant: https://graydon2.dreamwidth.org/307291.html https://graydon2.dreamwidth.org/307291.html

tensor 3y ago

I don't feel that Rust is actually well designed. The borrow checker and lack of GC makes it well suited to the tasks that traditionally one would use C or C++ for, and it is definitely safer than those language. But in terms of overall design it doesn't feel very cohesive, and priority is put in odd places. For example, error handling is an area where people almost always resort to 3rd party libraries. That, to me, having to rely on third party libraries for such basic features is a sign of a serious design flaw. Meanwhile, "clever" things like zero cost map and filter are prioritized and in the language for a long time. Overall it feels like a language that prioritizes "clever" features at the expense of boring but basic needs. Also any criticism is met with hostility rather than accommodation. It's a fine language, but I can't say that I love it.

rhodysurf 3y ago
I would consider error handling in rust my favorite of all the lanuages i use by a long margin, im not sure how it would be improved. Python I have to try catch, JS i have to try catch, C++ i have to try catch, Go I need more boilerplate than rust. Swift is close to rust, but without the Map Error logic its less ergonomic.
- tensor 3y ago
  An incredibly typical scenario is that a function makes several calls that each have their own error. E.g. maybe initialize the database and a web server. If you want this function to return an error that encompasses any of the sub-error types you are forced to write the most incredible amount of boilerplate that I've ever seen in a language. You need to define a composite error type and then implement all the required traits for it. I'm not sure how some people avoid this situation, but it's an incredibly common scenario and the only reasonable solution is to use a library like anyhow. Defining your own errors is also heavily boilerplate prone giving rise to things like thiserror. Why these third party libraries are not made into first class language features is beyond me, but it is an example of very poor design and is typical of what I mean. Rust implemented a solid error handling core, but then just didn't bother with the things that would make the error handling actually good. Fancy over pragmatic.

bachmeier 3y ago

> Rust has a very open development approach where people with many different experiences can share their wisdom Interesting take, but as someone that drifted away from Rust with the publication of the linked blog post, and wrote their last meaningful code in the language a year later, it does not describe my experience. YMMV, but compared to other languages, I'd say as a first approximation that they had no interest in comments from outside the inner circle.