4 ms·
> it's so much faster and shorter to write This is not obviously true to me, Rust provides more tools for building abstractions, even just "handle errors less
by dbaupp 12y ago
> it's so much faster and shorter to write
This is not obviously true to me, Rust provides more tools for building abstractions, even just "handle errors less manually"-abstractions, so they're possibly not that different (this certainly applies to the 'shorter' section).
I guess it may be true for the things Go is suited/designed for; time and experience will tell.
- burntsushi 12y agoAnecdotes and personal opinions follow. I'm pretty happy with the speed at which I write Rust code, but I can definitely churn out Go code more quickly. (Probably on the order of how quickly I can write Python, although refactoring Go code is much faster.) I'm not sure exactly why, but my guess is that there are fewer abstractions to deal with (and fewer opportunities to make abstractions). I have written several medium Go applications (near or above 10 KLOC, which ideally, I would never hit in a dynamic language), and I'm pretty happy with how the code turned out in all but one of them. (But that one is a window manager.) I haven't yet written a similarly sized Rust application, though. I do write Rust code more quickly that I write Haskell code though. :-)
- dbaupp 12y agoYeah, that's why I focused on 'shorter' more than 'quicker'. (And I wasn't saying it is not true, just pointing out that it's cut and dried.)
- dbaupp 12y agoWhoops! I mean: that it's not cut and dried.
- Daishiman 12y agoBear in mind that Rust's APIs still have a lot of work remaining in their ergonomics, and this is likely what slows down the daily grind the most.