3 ms·
I've heard from some of my colleagues at other companies that Rust has a significant negative impact on developer productivity compared to C++. This makes Rust
by steelframe 3y ago
I've heard from some of my colleagues at other companies that Rust has a significant negative impact on developer productivity compared to C++. This makes Rust great for, say, the Linux kernel, where the security and performance features are really needed and the maintainers don't give a rat's ass about how much time and effort it takes for contributors to get their features merged. On the other hand my current company already has significant challenges in the area of developer productivity, and it could very well be that requiring Rust for a new internal project would doom it from the start just for that reason.
- dralley 3y agoMy personal experience and that of many people I've spoken or listened to is the opposite. Mozilla and Oxide engineers talk about how much easier refactors are and how much less time is spent mucking around with build systems in Rust.
- spense 3y agopersonal antidote - i've heard this too, but jumping in (after years of python/typescript), i'm blown away by how productive i can be. it's easily my favorite language. the hiring pool may be smaller, but don't believe the fear.
- dbrgn 3y agoI can't confirm that. Rust's safety features allow moving fast without fear of subtle bugs. Developing in Rust can feel like fighting the compiler though when choosing approaches / architecture that aren't a good fit for Rust. This happens a lot when people only have little Rust experience. For example: Writing a linked list can be quite challenging in Rust due to self-referential types. With more experience in Rust, developer learn how to best structure the code so that it doesn't result in this friction.