Live data from Hacker News

Rust's 2017 Roadmap

blog.rust-lang.org

11–20 of 274 posts

Re: Rust's 2017 Roadmap

#11

I'm impressed with the direction they've laid out. It is great to see a deliberate effort is being made to make the language easier to learn and to strengthen the community's ability to leverage shared code.

Is there an good IDE for windows? Something that will step through debug?

I've used VSCode, you have to pick the GNU abi and install a couple plugins but it works reasonably well.

Re: Rust's 2017 Roadmap

#12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there an good IDE for windows? Something that will step through debug?

I've used VSCode, you have to pick the GNU abi and install a couple plugins but it works reasonably well.

I think VS Code is what the community is rallying around to become the flagship cross-platform Rust IDE, with intellij-rust as the second choice.

Re: Rust's 2017 Roadmap

#13
> Plans include a new book,

You should consider publishing an official, printed book. I would totally pay $30-40 for something like this. And once it's already written, the actual publishing shouldn't be too time consuming (but idk lol). I think that there's a lot of people who'd buy it just to support the project.

On one hand, I do have environmental concerns, but on the other hand, I feel like my retention rate with print is like 70% as opposed to like 40% with digital.

Re: Rust's 2017 Roadmap

#14

Don't change the language to make it easier (unless that can be a free lunch), but get someone doing a "Today in rust" or "Doing X in rust" blog/vlog. Also please get some sort of RNG into the main language (not as a crate).

Any particular reason rng must be in the stdlib? It's an "official" crate, maintained by the Rust developers. In general Rust tries to keep things out of its stdlib instead opting for crates. It lets these evolve independently of the stdlib (not tied to rustc releases), and also lets them have their own versioning (none of that urllib2 urllib3 nonsense)

I would say random numbers are a fairly core programming construct for a standard library. They're important, difficult to get right, and have huge implications if you get them wrong.

Re: Rust's 2017 Roadmap

#15
That's a good list. Get the basics right.

Rust has been putting much effort into "l33t features" in template land. I fear Rust may be going down the C++/Boost template metaprogramming rathole.

Re: Rust's 2017 Roadmap

#16

> Plans include a new book, You should consider publishing an official, printed book. I would totally pay $30-40 for something like this. And once it's already written, the actual publishing shouldn't be too time consuming (but idk lol). I think that there's a lot of people who'd buy it just to support the project. On one hand, I do have environmental concerns, but on the other hand, I feel like my retention rate wit…

It will be printed by No Starch.

Re: Rust's 2017 Roadmap

#17

> Plans include a new book, You should consider publishing an official, printed book. I would totally pay $30-40 for something like this. And once it's already written, the actual publishing shouldn't be too time consuming (but idk lol). I think that there's a lot of people who'd buy it just to support the project. On one hand, I do have environmental concerns, but on the other hand, I feel like my retention rate wit…

The new book will be published by NoStarch press!

Re: Rust's 2017 Roadmap

#18

> Plans include a new book, You should consider publishing an official, printed book. I would totally pay $30-40 for something like this. And once it's already written, the actual publishing shouldn't be too time consuming (but idk lol). I think that there's a lot of people who'd buy it just to support the project. On one hand, I do have environmental concerns, but on the other hand, I feel like my retention rate wit…

Rust needs a Rust book not written by the Rust developers. "Rust for Dummies", if you will.

Re: Rust's 2017 Roadmap

#19
post #15

That's a good list. Get the basics right. Rust has been putting much effort into "l33t features" in template land. I fear Rust may be going down the C++/Boost template metaprogramming rathole.

Which features are you thinking of, specifically? We actually just rejected an RFC for one of these features for being too complex, though it isn't a rejection of the feature entirely.
Post reply on HN