3 ms·

> But it also is so much more (and also a cult). Way to lose readers with memeish statements like that. That said it's in good company of cultists like Smallta

by Ygg2 2y ago

> But it also is so much more (and also a cult). Way to lose readers with memeish statements like that. That said it's in good company of cultists like Smalltalk and Lisp community ;) > * Its "oop" model is uncomfortable at first (coming from Ruby and Java) It's OOP in the sense it has polymorphism, and "methods" . It's not OOP in almost every other conceivable way. It doesn't fit with static OOP of Java. It doesn't fit with dynamic OOP of Smalltalk and Ruby. > It has downsides, and I consider the borrow-checker to be one of them I wouldn't want Rust without borrow checker, and never figured this complaint. Yes, it's uncomfortable and will prevent you from making some legal code. Guess what? So will a seatbelt. You move too fast to reach something and it snaps you in place.

raxxorraxor 2y ago
Rust to me looks a bit like Java. "One owner per resource" is Rusts "One class per file". I am not convinced that the mental overhead justifies the memory safety guarantees yet. At least for a general purpose language. I didn't yet write a lot of Rust, perhaps more experience trivializes Rusts ownership model.
- Ygg2 2y ago
  > "One class per file". Wait. What? Neither Java nor Rust limit class/struct per file. You must mean public class per file. As a fellow Java dev, no it doesn't look like Java at all. Maybe it looks a bit like Kotlin, but only superficially. I wrote Rust on and off for 5 years, by that time you internalize the borrow checker.
  - raxxorraxor 2y ago
    I did mean one public class per file. I didn't mean syntax or core lib to be similar, I just generally meant that both languages impose restrictions on themselves which might seem sensible at first.
    - Ygg2 2y ago
      Java isn't that restrictive. Rust's type system is much more restrictive and customizable. That said, a good way to think about programs is a series of restrictions, i.e. invariants. Truth be told, only Ada Spark so far really embraced invariants.

by Ygg2 2y ago

raxxorraxor 2y ago

Rust to me looks a bit like Java. "One owner per resource" is Rusts "One class per file". I am not convinced that the mental overhead justifies the memory safety guarantees yet. At least for a general purpose language. I didn't yet write a lot of Rust, perhaps more experience trivializes Rusts ownership model.

Ygg2 2y ago
> "One class per file". Wait. What? Neither Java nor Rust limit class/struct per file. You must mean public class per file. As a fellow Java dev, no it doesn't look like Java at all. Maybe it looks a bit like Kotlin, but only superficially. I wrote Rust on and off for 5 years, by that time you internalize the borrow checker.
- raxxorraxor 2y ago
  I did mean one public class per file. I didn't mean syntax or core lib to be similar, I just generally meant that both languages impose restrictions on themselves which might seem sensible at first.
  - Ygg2 2y ago
    Java isn't that restrictive. Rust's type system is much more restrictive and customizable. That said, a good way to think about programs is a series of restrictions, i.e. invariants. Truth be told, only Ada Spark so far really embraced invariants.