4 ms·
I feel a sort of professional obligation to learn the cryptic unnecessary glyphs and runes that Rust and its ilk proliferate all for this important concept that
by andrewmcwatters 2y ago
I feel a sort of professional obligation to learn the cryptic unnecessary glyphs and runes that Rust and its ilk proliferate all for this important concept that is memory safety.
However, I would much rather that more languages like Go and Zig simply take off in popularity instead, and that we just reject the eyesore and cognitive mess that is Rust syntax. It’s a language which has no regard for beauty.
- jcrites 2y agoFor what it's worth, I disagree. I think it would be difficult to design a language more elegant than Rust while accomplishing the same goals. Maybe those goals aren't ones that everyone cares about, and that's OK. It's a language that's definitely worth learning; it expands the mind in a way that languages like Go (or Java, or any GC language) will not. There is a great beauty and elegance to its design.
- OtomotO 2y agoI would love a much simpler Rust...a Zig with a borrowchecker, a small stdlib (like Rust), some official package manager. I agree that Rust has a lot of syntactic warts but the common stuff I find beautiful
- MarkSweep 2y agoAs long as we counting Go as an alternative to Rust, there are a whole host of other garbage collected languages that provide memory safety benefits compared to the status quo of C and C++. Languages like Ruby, Java, Python, C#, and PHP. Personally I don’t think it makes sense to write all software in Rust. A GC makes it much easier to write certain patterns that are frustrating to write in Rust.
- fjasdyfs 2y agoI agree the syntax in Rust can be hairy however presenting Go as an alternative to Rust makes zero sense. They have completely different runtime characteristics and goals.