3 ms·
I agree. This is going to affect Rust's adoption if they aren't careful. People are hesitant to write tutorials, documentation, or code that may need to be rewr
by quacker 13y ago
I agree. This is going to affect Rust's adoption if they aren't careful. People are hesitant to write tutorials, documentation, or code that may need to be rewritten later.
But I still give Rust a pass on this for the time being. Rust is a younger language than Go (Rust is not yet at version 1, while Go is at 1.1.1), and Rust supports far more compile-time features.
- tel 13y agoA little known fact is that Haskell's motto was to "Avoid Success At All Costs", i.e. that a long development cycle was incredibly valuable for a language. It takes a long time and much experimental use for features to settle into a good configuration. Rust will suffer from poor adoption for a long time if they wait on that. Rust will also be a better language for it.
- PommeDeTerre 13y agoWhen it comes to the Rust tutorials, documentation and code that do already exist, a lot of the information is now very misleading. This may even be more harmful than no documentation at all, especially for people new to the language. While this is an issue for other languages, I've found it to be far more severe with Rust.
- pcwalton 13y agoOther languages went through a lot of change too. They just did it behind closed doors. We could have done our development behind closed doors too so you wouldn't see all the churn, but that's not the way we work at Mozilla. Furthermore, Rust is quite ambitious. Getting lifetimes and the borrow check to work right is hard and involved research in all senses of the word; read the borrow check source code sometime. We did not just change things because we felt like it.