4 ms·

> Again, not my experience at all. I simply don't think about any of that stuff when I write Rust Your subjective perception is not reality. You have to think

> Again, not my experience at all. I simply don't think about any of that stuff when I write Rust Your subjective perception is not reality. You have to think about it, or your programs will be incorrect. The mental load may be low to an experience Rust programmer, but it is there, and it's very intrusive to Rust beginners like myself. > If you don't believe me, you're welcome to watch the literally hundreds of hours of me live coding in Rust on YouTube. That's not relevant. Lack of external indicators of cognitive load does not mean that it's not happening.

adastra22 2y ago
In most Rust code I write, I never have to use an explicit lifetime marker other than ‘static (which is more of a global const thing). It’s really only something you have to worry about under certain conditions.
bsnnkv 2y ago
Glad I noped out of this particular bad-faith subthread last night. I am pleasantly surprised to see however that this unfortunate subthread produced interesting and well-intentioned comments from others.
- throw10920 2y ago
  Perhaps consider not violating the literal letter of the HN guidelines: > Assume good faith. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html You have no idea what's going on it my head, yet you choose to believe that you do as a result of me countering your arguments. This is a great example of why the Rust community has a bad reputation.
evilduck 2y ago
> Your subjective perception is not reality. A self-whoosh? I'd consider myself a Rust beginner (e.g. I've completed Rustlings, I have written a handful data parse and transform programs on my own and a couple of web servers to benchmark stuff, nothing grandiose) and lifetimes haven't ever gotten in my way, they usually get automatically inferred or the compiler tells you what is wrong and how to fix it. Most code examples and docs I've worked with, like Rust By Example, Rust Cookbook, even Rocket's docs, don't even feature code with a lifetime annotation or they don't really need you as a developer to do anything with them other than copy and paste if necessary. This is the smallest hill to die on.

adastra22 2y ago

In most Rust code I write, I never have to use an explicit lifetime marker other than ‘static (which is more of a global const thing). It’s really only something you have to worry about under certain conditions.

bsnnkv 2y ago

Glad I noped out of this particular bad-faith subthread last night. I am pleasantly surprised to see however that this unfortunate subthread produced interesting and well-intentioned comments from others.

throw10920 2y ago
Perhaps consider not violating the literal letter of the HN guidelines: > Assume good faith. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html You have no idea what's going on it my head, yet you choose to believe that you do as a result of me countering your arguments. This is a great example of why the Rust community has a bad reputation.

evilduck 2y ago

> Your subjective perception is not reality. A self-whoosh? I'd consider myself a Rust beginner (e.g. I've completed Rustlings, I have written a handful data parse and transform programs on my own and a couple of web servers to benchmark stuff, nothing grandiose) and lifetimes haven't ever gotten in my way, they usually get automatically inferred or the compiler tells you what is wrong and how to fix it. Most code examples and docs I've worked with, like Rust By Example, Rust Cookbook, even Rocket's docs, don't even feature code with a lifetime annotation or they don't really need you as a developer to do anything with them other than copy and paste if necessary. This is the smallest hill to die on.