4 ms·
This rings true to me as well. I'm not sure what I get out of F# that I can't get from Rust, unless you specifically want .NET, which I don't.
by airstrike 2y ago
This rings true to me as well. I'm not sure what I get out of F# that I can't get from Rust, unless you specifically want .NET, which I don't.
- UK-Al05 2y agoLess arduous memory management.
- airstrike 2y agoI am not sure what you mean. My memory management for a recent 30k LOC app boils down to "thinking before cloning"
- DeathArrow 2y agoYou get speed of development, productivity, lots of libraries. You get something that is easy to learn and understand.
- airstrike 2y agoLots of libraries if you want .NET, right? But if you don't, Rust has way more libraries Speed of development is debatable. I think you can be pretty fast with both. Easy to learn I concede but it gets easier with time, until it becomes very easy
- loxs 2y agoHaving written a moderately big project in OCaml which I tried porting to F# and later did port to Rust, to me Rust feels much faster to develop than either OCaml or F#, especially once you figure out the "core", adding more features is a breeze. Refactoring is also easier. Not to mention that reading Rust is much easier than reading OCaml and coming back to the project after a year feels very easy. I think that I have less bugs with Rust than with OCaml. And the end product's core ended up being ~3-4 times faster to execute in Rust.