4 ms·
> have to understand everything, because if you don't do it in the "Rust way", it often won't compile I confess I haven't dug into it much yet, but this remind
by foobarian 5mo ago
> have to understand everything, because if you don't do it in the "Rust way", it often won't compile
I confess I haven't dug into it much yet, but this reminds me of how Haskell was. By the time you got a program to compile your project was more or less done.
- cratermoon 5mo agoRust is similar. I don't have a link handy, but I've read a few articles noting experience with programming in rust where a program that compiles works. Provided the logic is correct, of course.
- tombert 5mo agoIn some senses I actually find Rust a bit harder than Haskell. With Haskell the types are immutable and as such they can be happily shared everywhere. That required basically no rewiring in my brain. With Rust, I had to get used to single ownership or explicit cloning. There's an argument that this is "better", but I found it a bit harder to learn.
- tialaramex 5mo agoYou can choose to make all your things immutable and have the same "no rewiring" as Haskell. Sometimes that's an excellent idea, sometimes it's obviously a terrible idea, many times you'd have to measure to find out and IMHO in Rust you should write the easiest thing in those cases and only measure if your perf isn't acceptable.