3 ms·

Or there are "reverts and code reviews are faster" because no one wants to actually read through the perl-level line-noise type annotations, and just lgtm.

• oersted 11mo ago
  What type annotations? In Rust almost all the types are inferred outside of function and struct declarations. In terms of type verbosity (in the code) it is roughly on the same level as TypeScript and Python.
  • ok123456 11mo ago
    I'm precisely referring to function and struct definitions. It's 10x worse when you add in async. 20x if you add in macros. It's write only code, just like Perl but no where near as productive. Minor refactors become a game of Jenga.
    • Philpax 11mo ago
      This is not really a serious issue for any practicing Rust programmers.
      • ok123456 11mo ago
        They all have Stockholm syndrome then.
        • Philpax 11mo ago
          What's more likely: every single Rust programmer is wrong, or you're just not seeing the forest for the trees?
          • zdragnar 11mo ago
            Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and so I don't mind saying rust is butt ugly.
    • adastra22 11mo ago
      That’s just, like, your opinion, man.
• aw1621107 11mo ago
  > Or there are "reverts and code reviews are faster" This seems like a slight misreading of the comment you're responding to. The claim is not that reverts are "faster", whatever that would mean; the claim is that the revert rate is lower. Also, how would skimping on reviews lead to a lower revert rate? If anything, I'd imagine the normal assumption would be precisely the opposite - that skimping on reviews should lead to a higher revert rate, which is contrary to what the Android team found.