3 ms·

These problems already exist with low level programming (ie. no GC), Rust just forces you to deal with it explicitly at compile time trough it's type system rat

These problems already exist with low level programming (ie. no GC), Rust just forces you to deal with it explicitly at compile time trough it's type system rather than implicitly (docs/conventions/correct library usage). Anyone who's dealt with manual memory management already knows about these problems and rust solutions shouldn't be that foreign. My biggest issue with rust is that it's still in early phases even considering the 1.0 release, the language is still not really that expressive and plenty of stuff still looks incredibly tedious to do. I think 1.0 release is "here's something you can use" but it's not "here's something you'd want to use". I think I will need to wait till 2.0 so things get polished out and early adopters find all the initial design problems.

iopq 12y ago
Recall that in semantic versions you can ADD really nice sugar in a 1.1 version that will make life easier. I think Some 1.x release this year will make the language much more approachable. Especially regarding closures, they are really painful to use because nothing is properly inferred. You can easily improve type inference by just improving the compiler, this is almost not even a language issue. But it's a real quality of life issue. So after 1.0 is out you will see a lot of RFCs for things like variadic generics, higher kinded types, etc. that will make someone's life easier (and remove really ugly hacks due to the lack of said things) but are completely backwards compatible.
- moonchrome 12y ago
  Fair enough, I guess I should have said next big release. I really want a language that can replace C++ but ATM Rust doesn't feel like it would be more productive for the things I want to do as a language and then there's the tooling/libraries/platforms.