4 ms·

> I think it's a common misconception that ownership is there to make you suffer compiler shenanigans. I don't think it's a misconception. When I tried Rust I

by hgs3 3y ago

> I think it's a common misconception that ownership is there to make you suffer compiler shenanigans. I don't think it's a misconception. When I tried Rust I tried to implement a cyclic data structure but couldn't because there is no clear "owner" in a cyclic data structure. The "safe" solution recommended by the rustaceans was to use integer handles. So, instead of juggling pointers I was juggling integers which made the code harder to debug and find logic errors. At least when I was troubleshooting C I could rely on the debugger to break on a bad pointer, but finding where an integer became "bad" was more time consuming. > When in my experience it changes the way you model programs. Having to rearchitect my code to please the borrow checker gave me flashbacks to Java where I'd be forced to architect my code as a hierarchy of objects. In both languages you need design patterns and other work-arounds since both force a specific model onto your code whether it makes sense or not.

Voultapher 3y ago
You seem to have a preset opinion, and I'm not sure you are interested in re-evaluating it. So this is not written to change your mind. I've developed production code in C, C++, Rust, and several other languages. And while like pretty much everything, there are situations where it's not a good fit, I find that the solutions tend to be the most robust and require the least post release debugging in Rust. That's my personal experience. It's not hard data. And yes occasionally it's annoying to please the compiler, and if there were no trait constraints or borrow rules, those instances would be easier. But way more often in my experience the compiler complained because my initial solution had problems I didn't realize before. So for me, these situations have been about going from building it the way I wanted to -> compiler tells me I didn't consider an edge case -> changing the implementation and or design to account for that edge case. Also using one example, where Rust is notoriously hard and or un-ergonomic to use, and dismissing the entire language seems premature to me. For those that insist on learning Rust by implementing a linked list there is https://rust-unofficial.github.io/too-many-lists/ https://rust-unofficial.github.io/too-many-lists/.
- hitekker 3y ago
  The GP commented once, politely disagreeing and describing their own experience. Looking over their past comments, I also don't see hostility to the ideals of memory safety or using Rust. Seems like you made a passive-aggressive presumption.

by hgs3 3y ago

Voultapher 3y ago

You seem to have a preset opinion, and I'm not sure you are interested in re-evaluating it. So this is not written to change your mind. I've developed production code in C, C++, Rust, and several other languages. And while like pretty much everything, there are situations where it's not a good fit, I find that the solutions tend to be the most robust and require the least post release debugging in Rust. That's my personal experience. It's not hard data. And yes occasionally it's annoying to please the compiler, and if there were no trait constraints or borrow rules, those instances would be easier. But way more often in my experience the compiler complained because my initial solution had problems I didn't realize before. So for me, these situations have been about going from building it the way I wanted to -> compiler tells me I didn't consider an edge case -> changing the implementation and or design to account for that edge case. Also using one example, where Rust is notoriously hard and or un-ergonomic to use, and dismissing the entire language seems premature to me. For those that insist on learning Rust by implementing a linked list there is https://rust-unofficial.github.io/too-many-lists/ https://rust-unofficial.github.io/too-many-lists/.

hitekker 3y ago
The GP commented once, politely disagreeing and describing their own experience. Looking over their past comments, I also don't see hostility to the ideals of memory safety or using Rust. Seems like you made a passive-aggressive presumption.