3 ms·

This seems not even close to the worst feature of rust - this seems like it needs some more design work and baking. Like lots of things. The amount of hyperbol

This seems not even close to the worst feature of rust - this seems like it needs some more design work and baking. Like lots of things. The amount of hyperbole in this article makes it a bit hard to take the author all that seriously. Is there evidence more baking won't happen? While i have my loves and hates about rust, it definitely always felt like they had a pretty thorough/careful process for additions like this. If you go constructively into the threads and offer some concerns, you will usually get some reasonable response. (All processes of course, fail, so this is not always true, but it's mostly true) While i think it's fine to write rants on blogs, and don't feel like everyone has a responsibility to file bugs or whatever before they write a rant about it, if you actually want to see this "worst feature" fixed, this probably won't help very much. (IE You don't have to be constructive, or even helpful, but if you want to be constructive or helpful, this ain't how you do it)

Xunjin 2y ago
I'm not as much low-level development as the author seems to be, but the hyperbole made me think “you have a point, which is/can be valid, but aren't you stretching the reasons to fit in your sentiment/PoV?” Being honest, plenty of times we throw “Ergonomics” as an argument, however, are ergonomics more a feeling of how good are the API usage instead of actually prove with examples and design choices?
dathinab 2y ago
> Is there evidence more baking won't happen? No, actually there is a lot of evidence that it will still be worked on. Normally I would just say look at the issue linked in the nightly docs but due to an overlap of tacking PR and moving it from std to core PR it's not supper useful. Tracking Issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/78485 https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/78485 If the author has constructive critique they should probably mention it there (after skimming through the discussion to make sure this wasn't already considered and not done due to subtleties they overlooked in the blog post (like e.g. that it's a standard/core feature which has to work across all targets and as such can't rely on anything being initialized to 0 by the OS, or that depending on the global allocator used you definitely can't rely on things being zeroed even if the OS only hands out zeroed memory, etc. etc.))
thayne 2y ago
Well, as they said in the conclusion, they don't really have any constructive suggestions. It is mostly a lament that this wasn't better designed from the beginning, because backwards compatibility puts significant constraints on the design.

Xunjin 2y ago

I'm not as much low-level development as the author seems to be, but the hyperbole made me think “you have a point, which is/can be valid, but aren't you stretching the reasons to fit in your sentiment/PoV?” Being honest, plenty of times we throw “Ergonomics” as an argument, however, are ergonomics more a feeling of how good are the API usage instead of actually prove with examples and design choices?

dathinab 2y ago

> Is there evidence more baking won't happen? No, actually there is a lot of evidence that it will still be worked on. Normally I would just say look at the issue linked in the nightly docs but due to an overlap of tacking PR and moving it from std to core PR it's not supper useful. Tracking Issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/78485 https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/78485 If the author has constructive critique they should probably mention it there (after skimming through the discussion to make sure this wasn't already considered and not done due to subtleties they overlooked in the blog post (like e.g. that it's a standard/core feature which has to work across all targets and as such can't rely on anything being initialized to 0 by the OS, or that depending on the global allocator used you definitely can't rely on things being zeroed even if the OS only hands out zeroed memory, etc. etc.))

thayne 2y ago

Well, as they said in the conclusion, they don't really have any constructive suggestions. It is mostly a lament that this wasn't better designed from the beginning, because backwards compatibility puts significant constraints on the design.