4 ms·
Yeah this is a bad example for introductions for rust - namely that async rust is something I'd consider advanced. However the type explicitness is, IMO, one o
by junon 2y ago
Yeah this is a bad example for introductions for rust - namely that async rust is something I'd consider advanced.
However the type explicitness is, IMO, one of its strengths. It lets you build up types that e.g. in C++ we're not a given, had properties about the behavior buried in docs, etc.
- pjmlp 2y agoIt would be, if there wasn't a trend to expose async all over the place on the Rust ecosystem. Thus even newbies get to bump into it quite fast.
- kenmacd 2y agoThey run in to async, but do they run in to the internals of how that code is executed? The chapter that example is from includes the disclaimer: > In this section, we'll cover the underlying structure of how Futures and asynchronous tasks are scheduled. If you're only interested in learning how to write higher-level code that uses existing Future types and aren't interested in the details of how Future types work, you can skip ahead to the async/await chapter.
- pjmlp 2y agoNaturally, as soon as they get some kind of async related compilation error.
- junon 2y agoDepends on the use case. Rust has more explicit types, yes. It's kind of a weak argument against the language though, in my opinion.