3 ms·

Because if I want to modify it, I prefer it to be in a language I understand. The syntax of Rust is incomprehensible to me.

Levitating 2y ago
That argument is most often the other way around
thesuperbigfrog 2y ago
>> Because if I want to modify it, I prefer it to be in a language I understand. The syntax of Rust is incomprehensible to me. It is a great time to learn Rust: https://www.rust-lang.org/learn https://www.rust-lang.org/learn It continues to see adoption in places where C and C++ were the primary choices. It is exciting to see it in the microcontroller OS space.
- gmueckl 2y ago
  How is this a an appropriate answer to a (not totally baseless) complaint about bad developer ergonomics? GP didn't say how hard they tried learning rust. This comes off as needlessly condescending.
  - reanimus 2y ago
    Because if you can't understand the syntax it's quite literally a skill issue. They didn't give any substantive critique beyond "reading is hard".
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      I assert that certain syntaxes work with how certain people think, and don't work with how certain other people think. You can train to get around that to some degree, but it's not entirely a skill issue.
      - reanimus 2y ago
        Again, without stating something more substantive about why the syntax is "incomprehensible" to them, my best assessment is always going to be "skill issue".
    - gmueckl 2y ago
      Wow, this is just doubling down condescension again, while insinuating laziness baselessly. I resent that, especially when it is about a language that has parts that were intentionally designed to yield hard to read code.
      - pessimizer 2y ago
        Counterpoint: Rust is easy to read, and none of it was designed to be hard to read. If you make a website listing the languages you do understand, people who are concerned can consult it before they begin a project.
      - reanimus 2y ago
        > insinuating laziness baselessly > intentionally designed to yield hard to read code I think if you assume that syntax you find odd/difficult was intended to confound you, I can safely make assumptions of my own.
    - az09mugen 2y ago
      More than the syntax, it's the verbosity. The more you have to read the more you have to process. Did anyone in the creators of Rust have a look at the syntax of Crystal, Kotlin, Julia, or Elixir ? They're simple, you really don't have to put a lot of effort into reading. Rust looks like C took the verbosity of Java as a mandatory requirement and borrowed some cool concepts of Haskell (but not the simplicity of its syntax though).
      - reanimus 2y ago
        Part of it is the explicitness mandated by the language (i.e. when dealing with Optionals or Results, you have to deal with both cases or explicitly state which you expect as an invariant). There's also curious (imo) choices on the part of rustfmt that seems to favor density of code that way.
      - rcxdude 2y ago
        Interesting, I find rust is pretty dense, but mostly in a good way. It packs a lot of important information into the code, which is useful for reasoning about it. Languages with simpler syntax tend to hide that information (and sometimes because it's irrelevant due to the kind of tradeoffs they make, like all the languages you mention have some form of GC). Haskell I would say is especially hard for me to read, when there's so little syntax the code is just a sequence of functions and symbols without obvious delimiters it becomes a lot harder for me to understand the structure of it.
pjmlp 2y ago
There are already plenty of those to chose from.
palata 2y ago
Well if I want to write an OS in Fortran, BASIC, nodejs or even assembly, I think it is my choice. If you don't like it, just ignore it, I really don't see the beginning of a problem there. I understand complaints in other contexts: for instance, if one sends tens of thousands of satellites or burns forests, the mere fact that they are doing it may bother me. But again: what do you care if somebody writes a software project in a language you don't like?
- pklausler 2y ago
  I am allowed to care if I am in any way responsible for its future maintenance, or become dependent upon it in my own project.
  - palata 2y ago
    Hmm... if you are part of the creators of the project, of course. Now if you don't like Rust, you should not become a maintainer of a Rust project, it's as simple as that. No need to go complain on every Rust project you find online. Same for your own project: don't become dependent upon a project that you don't want to have to deal with... If you do, then don't go complain about it: you made the choice to depend upon it.
SpaghettiCthulu 2y ago
What a selfish, narrow-minded take. If I want to modify it, I prefer it to be in a language I understand. The syntax of C/C++ is incomprehensible to me. See? Anyone can do it. That genre of argument is meritless.

Levitating 2y ago

That argument is most often the other way around

thesuperbigfrog 2y ago

>> Because if I want to modify it, I prefer it to be in a language I understand. The syntax of Rust is incomprehensible to me. It is a great time to learn Rust: https://www.rust-lang.org/learn https://www.rust-lang.org/learn It continues to see adoption in places where C and C++ were the primary choices. It is exciting to see it in the microcontroller OS space.

gmueckl 2y ago
How is this a an appropriate answer to a (not totally baseless) complaint about bad developer ergonomics? GP didn't say how hard they tried learning rust. This comes off as needlessly condescending.
- reanimus 2y ago
  Because if you can't understand the syntax it's quite literally a skill issue. They didn't give any substantive critique beyond "reading is hard".
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    I assert that certain syntaxes work with how certain people think, and don't work with how certain other people think. You can train to get around that to some degree, but it's not entirely a skill issue.
    - reanimus 2y ago
      Again, without stating something more substantive about why the syntax is "incomprehensible" to them, my best assessment is always going to be "skill issue".
  - gmueckl 2y ago
    Wow, this is just doubling down condescension again, while insinuating laziness baselessly. I resent that, especially when it is about a language that has parts that were intentionally designed to yield hard to read code.
    - pessimizer 2y ago
      Counterpoint: Rust is easy to read, and none of it was designed to be hard to read. If you make a website listing the languages you do understand, people who are concerned can consult it before they begin a project.
    - reanimus 2y ago
      > insinuating laziness baselessly > intentionally designed to yield hard to read code I think if you assume that syntax you find odd/difficult was intended to confound you, I can safely make assumptions of my own.
  - az09mugen 2y ago
    More than the syntax, it's the verbosity. The more you have to read the more you have to process. Did anyone in the creators of Rust have a look at the syntax of Crystal, Kotlin, Julia, or Elixir ? They're simple, you really don't have to put a lot of effort into reading. Rust looks like C took the verbosity of Java as a mandatory requirement and borrowed some cool concepts of Haskell (but not the simplicity of its syntax though).
    - reanimus 2y ago
      Part of it is the explicitness mandated by the language (i.e. when dealing with Optionals or Results, you have to deal with both cases or explicitly state which you expect as an invariant). There's also curious (imo) choices on the part of rustfmt that seems to favor density of code that way.
    - rcxdude 2y ago
      Interesting, I find rust is pretty dense, but mostly in a good way. It packs a lot of important information into the code, which is useful for reasoning about it. Languages with simpler syntax tend to hide that information (and sometimes because it's irrelevant due to the kind of tradeoffs they make, like all the languages you mention have some form of GC). Haskell I would say is especially hard for me to read, when there's so little syntax the code is just a sequence of functions and symbols without obvious delimiters it becomes a lot harder for me to understand the structure of it.

pjmlp 2y ago

There are already plenty of those to chose from.

palata 2y ago

Well if I want to write an OS in Fortran, BASIC, nodejs or even assembly, I think it is my choice. If you don't like it, just ignore it, I really don't see the beginning of a problem there. I understand complaints in other contexts: for instance, if one sends tens of thousands of satellites or burns forests, the mere fact that they are doing it may bother me. But again: what do you care if somebody writes a software project in a language you don't like?

pklausler 2y ago
I am allowed to care if I am in any way responsible for its future maintenance, or become dependent upon it in my own project.
- palata 2y ago
  Hmm... if you are part of the creators of the project, of course. Now if you don't like Rust, you should not become a maintainer of a Rust project, it's as simple as that. No need to go complain on every Rust project you find online. Same for your own project: don't become dependent upon a project that you don't want to have to deal with... If you do, then don't go complain about it: you made the choice to depend upon it.

SpaghettiCthulu 2y ago

What a selfish, narrow-minded take. If I want to modify it, I prefer it to be in a language I understand. The syntax of C/C++ is incomprehensible to me. See? Anyone can do it. That genre of argument is meritless.