3 ms·
Rust libraries tend to over abstract and then need large refactors when those abstractions fall apart. When I’ve complained about it in the past I’ve been met w
by jpc0 1y ago
Rust libraries tend to over abstract and then need large refactors when those abstractions fall apart. When I’ve complained about it in the past I’ve been met with “You would need the abstraction eventually”. Maybe, but I’m also capable of building it myself it it gets to that.
Maybe that’s more of a bias with rust media stuff, seems to be going deeper into that rabbit hole though.
The community was at least, may still be, very sensitive to rust being criticised. I genuinely brought an example of a provably correct piece of code that the borrow checker wouldn’t accept, interior mutability problem. I was I should build a massive abstraction to avoid the problem and that I’m holding it wrong… Put me off the language for a few years, it shouldn’t have, I should have just ignored the people and continued on but we all get older and learn things.
- simonask 1y agoI think there's a bit of mismanaged expectations, combined with a community that, while generally helpful, suffers from a bit of fatigue from constantly dispelling myths and falsehoods about the language, often presented in bad faith. My favorite is when Rust gets dragged into weird American "culture wars" - somehow, it's a "woke" language? (And somehow, that's a problem?) But yeah, the language docs are pretty up front about the fact that the borrow checker sometimes rejects code that is provably fine, so it's a weird criticism. The nontrivial breakthrough was that Rust proved that a huge amount of nontrivial code can be written within the restrictions of the borrow checker, eliminating swaths of risk factors without a resource penalty.