Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why is Rust difficult?

vorner.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 260 posts

Re: Why is Rust difficult?

#21

Post by SamReidHughes »

bitL wrote: post #19
SamReidHughes wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? Could you give an example? I've found a borrow checker bug in the current release but the rest of the time its behavior is perfectly predictable. Granted, I wouldn't be surprised if the documentation was horrible, my understanding of the checker is based on one way I would do it.

It's simply one more thing you need to keep in your internal "context" while writing a program, taking mental resources you could spend elsewhere. Perhaps an IDE guiding you and outright rejecting the code or offering code completion that is compatible with borrow checker might be a solution, though we aren't there yet I believe.

You have the same thing in C++, right?

Re: Why is Rust difficult?

#22

Post by rufius »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #14

Is there a way to avoid the true-believer syndrome for Rust? I want to embrace Rust, but everyone ~100% of the time comes away chanting about how awesome Rust is. So much so that it's a bit unsettling. Zealotry in general is bad, but especially in programming: once you identify as an X programmer, you lose out on ideas from Y and Z. Every tool has its flaws, but for whatever reason it seems extremely rare to discuss…

Seems like it’s time to decide for yourself?

I don’t spend much time or thought on what others have to say about which tech is the best for X/YEverything. I just learn it use it, and then make up my mind.

Re: Why is Rust difficult?

#24

Post by bitL »

tatterdemalion wrote: post #12
bitL wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. Just it's super difficult to understand how exactly borrow checker operates and when would it allow program to compile or not, causing all kinds of unpredictable situations and unless you are "black belt"-level, difficulty providing any estimates. Not mentioning loss of morale when you have to fight it every single day.

This is not my experience using Rust. I had six months of programming experience when I first tried Rust. I definitely got confusing errors at first, but I grasped the system within a month or two. And that was in 2014 - the borrowchecker and especially its errors have way improved since then! But this is also a very different objection from your initial objection, which was just a statement of fact about type system…

I'll take a look once I am done learning another hot language ;-) Thanks!

Re: Why is Rust difficult?

#25

Post by sillysaurus3 »

eridius wrote: post #17
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #14

Is there a way to avoid the true-believer syndrome for Rust? I want to embrace Rust, but everyone ~100% of the time comes away chanting about how awesome Rust is. So much so that it's a bit unsettling. Zealotry in general is bad, but especially in programming: once you identify as an X programmer, you lose out on ideas from Y and Z. Every tool has its flaws, but for whatever reason it seems extremely rare to discuss…

I find it pretty strange to read you say "it costs static typing". Static typing is a feature . There's a reason people are starting to switch to TypeScript instead of JavaScript.

(ง'̀-'́)ง

Static typing is useful in large codebases at big companies because it forces you to communicate your intentions clearly. It's also useful in large OSS projects because it allows your IDE to auto generate tooling and documentation. If someone is using TypeScript, it's far more likely the codebase will have clear, documented interfaces.

But TypeScript is optional. It doesn't hold you down and yell at you until you obey it. Even when you're using it, you can simply ignore the warnings/errors if you want to be naughty, and TypeScript will simply shrug and say "if you insist. You'll realize later I was right." But in the meantime your code actually runs.

In Rust, it's the opposite. You have to think about every single aspect of what you're doing. Making a cathedral out of toothpicks would also force you to plan your actions very carefully, but you wouldn't really say it's a feature per se. More like the tradeoffs of the medium.

Re: Why is Rust difficult?

#26

Post by bronson »

bitL wrote: post #11
cortesoft wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this comes down to philosophy; do you want the compiler to just check that the program works for all the current parts, or to have the compiler make sure that the program will work for all the possible ways the interfaces can be used as described? Basically, Rust makes you ensure that your code can actually do all the things it says it can do, not just the things it is currently doing. Personally, I find that…

I'd love if it were able to predict correctness of the program, but it can't (halting problem something). It can only approximate it and to be meaningful, it has to be pessimistic. Which is one more headache to casual developers.

Are you saying that Rust is trying to predict the correctness of the program? Sure, parts like deadlocks and memory use, but the whole thing?

This seems to be a common misconception, maybe from interacting with overzealous Rust fan clubbers.

Re: Why is Rust difficult?

#27

Post by raz32dust »

kumarvvr wrote: post #13

After years of using Python, it's been difficult to wrap my head around GO and Rust. I really wish there was a course on Rust / Go for python programmers.

There are several Go for Python programmers tutorials. A google search would throw up many. And it makes sense, because Go is, in my opinion, a good alternative to python as a scripting language. It is faster and safer although slightly more verbose.

There are some Rust for python guides as well, but I think it is the wrong approach in case of Rust. Rust is really a more systems programming language. It makes sense to either learn it from scratch, or learn from a C++ background. Even coming from a Java background, I found it easier to just forget about my knowledge of Java and start looking at Rust as something completely fresh. In case of Go, I was easily able to map it to the python and Java concepts I already knew. I think Go has a nice niche where it can replace both Java and python, but not C++. Rust can replace C++, but not Java or python.

Re: Why is Rust difficult?

#28

Post by tatterdemalion »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #25
eridius wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it pretty strange to read you say "it costs static typing". Static typing is a feature . There's a reason people are starting to switch to TypeScript instead of JavaScript.

(ง'̀-'́)ง Static typing is useful in large codebases at big companies because it forces you to communicate your intentions clearly. It's also useful in large OSS projects because it allows your IDE to auto generate tooling and documentation. If someone is using TypeScript, it's far more likely the codebase will have clear, documented interfaces. But TypeScript is optional . It doesn't hold you down and yell at you un…

Rust is consciously designed for large code bases. shrug

Re: Why is Rust difficult?

#30

Post by bitL »

SamReidHughes wrote: post #21
bitL wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's simply one more thing you need to keep in your internal "context" while writing a program, taking mental resources you could spend elsewhere. Perhaps an IDE guiding you and outright rejecting the code or offering code completion that is compatible with borrow checker might be a solution, though we aren't there yet I believe.

You have the same thing in C++, right?

Yes, and sometimes I wish C++ stayed somewhere in pre C99 levels where a single person could master it. As much as new features are useful, they make codebases unreadable to anyone that doesn't grasp all concepts. Even Google internally "javaizes" C++ and uses a strict subset to keep some sanity. Scala is another language that can go insane in the same fashion if teams don't enforce strict rules.
Post reply on HN