3 ms·

> How many of those advanced concept in Rust such as borrow checker & lifetime could be avoided as a beginner? As a beginner, you can avoid references (&) and

> How many of those advanced concept in Rust such as borrow checker & lifetime could be avoided as a beginner? As a beginner, you can avoid references (&) and simply clone() everything when it gives you trouble. If you start off by writing simple Actix/Axum web services instead of manually multithreaded apps, the problem domain is inherently linear and you'll avoid lifetimes and the borrow checker almost entirely. This lets you feel productive while getting a feel for the rest of the language features. Don't do this once you learn the ropes of the borrow checker, of course. Once you grok it, the borrow checker is almost second nature.

idontknowmuch 2y ago
I don’t think the basic usage of references is hard to grok for a beginner. If you aren’t going to mutate data and only access it, then pass a reference. No need for over-complicated semantics when describing it to a new Rust user.
- teaearlgraycold 2y ago
  What if you want to add a reference field to a struct? That's the point where I usually get pretty upset with how Rust works.
  - MrJohz 2y ago
    You probably don't want a reference field in a struct, at least to begin with. It's a lot easier to reason about structs if they contain owned data only, and you take a reference to the entire struct. There are some specific cases where it might be sensible, or even necessary to do that, but for someone who is still learning lifetimes, these cases are unlikely to come up. I recommend reading Steve Klabnik's "When should I use String vs &Str?" post, which is generally good advice when deciding between owned data and references. The "Level 4" section covers the case of references in structs.
  - duped 2y ago
    You get a lot more compiler help than when you try and put a reference in a class in C++, and if you want to use smart pointers its even better because you'll never have to learn about move and copy constructors or copy and move assignment operators.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

idontknowmuch 2y ago

I don’t think the basic usage of references is hard to grok for a beginner. If you aren’t going to mutate data and only access it, then pass a reference. No need for over-complicated semantics when describing it to a new Rust user.

teaearlgraycold 2y ago
What if you want to add a reference field to a struct? That's the point where I usually get pretty upset with how Rust works.
- MrJohz 2y ago
  You probably don't want a reference field in a struct, at least to begin with. It's a lot easier to reason about structs if they contain owned data only, and you take a reference to the entire struct. There are some specific cases where it might be sensible, or even necessary to do that, but for someone who is still learning lifetimes, these cases are unlikely to come up. I recommend reading Steve Klabnik's "When should I use String vs &Str?" post, which is generally good advice when deciding between owned data and references. The "Level 4" section covers the case of references in structs.
- duped 2y ago
  You get a lot more compiler help than when you try and put a reference in a class in C++, and if you want to use smart pointers its even better because you'll never have to learn about move and copy constructors or copy and move assignment operators.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]