3 ms·

It really shocked me that it took people so long to figure this out. When I used Rust, I found it really quite unpleasant for prototyping, which if I understand

It really shocked me that it took people so long to figure this out. When I used Rust, I found it really quite unpleasant for prototyping, which if I understand it correctly is essentially all you are doing during game development. I imagine someone who stuck at it for a long time would learn a lot of strange lessons very quickly and eventually start churning out a lot of very odd code, I know I started to do that after a while. Indeed some of the stuff in this article reminds me of the stuff I used to make. When you want to make a programming language work in ways it just isn't designed for, you end up making a lot of smelly code. I see this in C++, so I'm not entirely surprised it shows up in Rust also. Rust is designed by C++ programmers to service their needs so it logically also replicates the shortcomings of C++. Use a high level language for your logic, and a low level one to optimise your hot loop. Have we not learned this lesson already? It is almost always easier to design something at a high level and migrate parts of it downwards as necessary.

selfmodruntime 2y ago
I kind of agree. It is pleasant to use for prototyping in "simpler" use cases where you want correctness from the start. I use Rust daily for implementation of IETF standards and drafts and rust helps me a lot in figuring out undefined cases or things that are still unclear. I would never use Rust for game design or reactive UI and I don't understand why people are trying to shoehorn Rust into these use cases. They both benefit immensely from global shared state and object-oriented patterns and Rust's correctness makes workarounds harder if not impossible.
einpoklum 2y ago
> When you want to make a programming language work in ways it just isn't designed for, you end up making a lot of smelly code. That depends on the language. If your language is flexible/multi-paradigmatic, it was designed for you to make it work in all sorts of ways, so there is at least a potential of the code not eing smelly. > Rust is designed by C++ programmers to service their needs Rust was originally written in OCaml for someone who wanted to work on a browser engine. So, I'm not quite sure about your characterization. Remember also that different (C++) programmers have vastly different needs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_(programming_language) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_(programming_language)

selfmodruntime 2y ago

I kind of agree. It is pleasant to use for prototyping in "simpler" use cases where you want correctness from the start. I use Rust daily for implementation of IETF standards and drafts and rust helps me a lot in figuring out undefined cases or things that are still unclear. I would never use Rust for game design or reactive UI and I don't understand why people are trying to shoehorn Rust into these use cases. They both benefit immensely from global shared state and object-oriented patterns and Rust's correctness makes workarounds harder if not impossible.

einpoklum 2y ago

> When you want to make a programming language work in ways it just isn't designed for, you end up making a lot of smelly code. That depends on the language. If your language is flexible/multi-paradigmatic, it was designed for you to make it work in all sorts of ways, so there is at least a potential of the code not eing smelly. > Rust is designed by C++ programmers to service their needs Rust was originally written in OCaml for someone who wanted to work on a browser engine. So, I'm not quite sure about your characterization. Remember also that different (C++) programmers have vastly different needs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_(programming_language) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_(programming_language)