3 ms·

Can't say I agree, or that this matches my experience of writing Rust. I don't memorise how it works, I've just learnt what it rejects and why, and this in tur

Can't say I agree, or that this matches my experience of writing Rust. I don't memorise how it works, I've just learnt what it rejects and why, and this in turn becomes clear as to why it's rejected that. Very rarely do I find myself going "oh bother, now I suddenly need to `Rc` or `Arc` this, I suspect because I've just gotten into the habit of suspecting when I anticipate things will run afoul and structuring things from the get-go to avoid that. Admittedly, I'm not writing absurdly low-level code. I wonder if the authors grounding C++ is making life harder for them? Often when I've had to teach people Rust, getting them to stop writing {C/C#/Java}-but-in-Rust is the first stop on the trail to "stop fighting and actually enjoy the language". Every language has its idioms, just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

skp1995 2y ago
I do have to ask, I have worked in codebases which used lifetimes and didn't lean into Rc/Arc and vice-versa. I used to think Arc/Rc was a shortcut to avoiding the borrow checker shenanigans, but have evolved that thinking over time. You do mention it in your comment so wondering if you have anything to share about it
s17n 2y ago
If you aren't writing low level code, why not use a GC language?
- FridgeSeal 2y ago
  Great type system, great performance, great packages, great tooling, nice high-level API’s that produce low overhead code, I’m most familiar in Rust now. I’ve had more than enough unpleasant experiences with write-runs-breaks-at-runtime style languages. I don’t like writing them, I hate having to support them in prod as they give me constant-persistent-stress. I hate what idiomatic C# is, and how much ceremony there is to read and write it. Java is worse. Go’s type system is too anaemic for my tastes. Haskell is nice, but gets a bit academic and lacks some day-to-day niceties. Kotlin is supposed to be nice, but again, we’re getting maybe 50% of Rust type system features, and you’re basically just piggybacking on Java/JVM which I hated dealing with previously. IDK what else that leaves in the mainstream. I used to play around with Nim, and that was quite nice though.
  - neonsunset 2y ago
    F# :) Expression-oriented, HM type inference with gradual typing, faster than other FP languages, can even reach for low-level bits, or write extra glue code in C# which is more pleasant at low-level imperative code. Not sure what exactly you refer to as idiomatic C#. If it has too much ceremony chances are it’s anything but!
    - FridgeSeal 2y ago
      Yeah I’ve used F# before! It was pretty good, some solid features and nice experience. It just falls into a bit of weird place IMO? You have to rely on writing/using C# to fill any holes, and I really dislike that language/ecosystem, and why split between 2 lands when I can just get the same HM type system, similar-enough principles, better perf and no MS taint. Edit: I do love the ML style syntax though, Haskell, F#, Dhall are awesome, I wish it were more readily accepted.
      - neonsunset 2y ago
        The hatred of .NET (and C#) is unfortunate, irrational and unwarranted. I ended up unfortunately resorting to just thinking less of engineers that have it, because they can’t update their priors (“it was slightly inconvenient 8 years ago so it must be bad today surely”) and distinguish between Microsoft’s other products and policies and .NET itself.
        kstrauser 2y ago
        I believe that’s shortsighted. I’ve been adjacent to any number of Microsoft rugpulls over the years (Visual FoxPro.NET any day now, promise!). Their are enough non-MS languages that C#’s never tempted me. I don’t think it’s a bad language and don’t think poorly of you for using it, but I feel much better about the long-term prospects of Rust and wouldn’t likely build a new business on C# today.
        neonsunset 2y ago

skp1995 2y ago

I do have to ask, I have worked in codebases which used lifetimes and didn't lean into Rc/Arc and vice-versa. I used to think Arc/Rc was a shortcut to avoiding the borrow checker shenanigans, but have evolved that thinking over time. You do mention it in your comment so wondering if you have anything to share about it

s17n 2y ago

If you aren't writing low level code, why not use a GC language?

FridgeSeal 2y ago
Great type system, great performance, great packages, great tooling, nice high-level API’s that produce low overhead code, I’m most familiar in Rust now. I’ve had more than enough unpleasant experiences with write-runs-breaks-at-runtime style languages. I don’t like writing them, I hate having to support them in prod as they give me constant-persistent-stress. I hate what idiomatic C# is, and how much ceremony there is to read and write it. Java is worse. Go’s type system is too anaemic for my tastes. Haskell is nice, but gets a bit academic and lacks some day-to-day niceties. Kotlin is supposed to be nice, but again, we’re getting maybe 50% of Rust type system features, and you’re basically just piggybacking on Java/JVM which I hated dealing with previously. IDK what else that leaves in the mainstream. I used to play around with Nim, and that was quite nice though.
- neonsunset 2y ago
  F# :) Expression-oriented, HM type inference with gradual typing, faster than other FP languages, can even reach for low-level bits, or write extra glue code in C# which is more pleasant at low-level imperative code. Not sure what exactly you refer to as idiomatic C#. If it has too much ceremony chances are it’s anything but!
  - FridgeSeal 2y ago
    Yeah I’ve used F# before! It was pretty good, some solid features and nice experience. It just falls into a bit of weird place IMO? You have to rely on writing/using C# to fill any holes, and I really dislike that language/ecosystem, and why split between 2 lands when I can just get the same HM type system, similar-enough principles, better perf and no MS taint. Edit: I do love the ML style syntax though, Haskell, F#, Dhall are awesome, I wish it were more readily accepted.
    - neonsunset 2y ago
      The hatred of .NET (and C#) is unfortunate, irrational and unwarranted. I ended up unfortunately resorting to just thinking less of engineers that have it, because they can’t update their priors (“it was slightly inconvenient 8 years ago so it must be bad today surely”) and distinguish between Microsoft’s other products and policies and .NET itself.
      - kstrauser 2y ago
        I believe that’s shortsighted. I’ve been adjacent to any number of Microsoft rugpulls over the years (Visual FoxPro.NET any day now, promise!). Their are enough non-MS languages that C#’s never tempted me. I don’t think it’s a bad language and don’t think poorly of you for using it, but I feel much better about the long-term prospects of Rust and wouldn’t likely build a new business on C# today.
        neonsunset 2y ago