11–20 of 323 posts
> universally terrible documentation and lacking examples, unstable APIs, type annotation hell, and so much more.
The docs in Rust are by far some of the best I've seen, without specifics it's really hard to understand what issues he hit.
I'm looking forward to the full article, because it's nice to know that I'm not alone here. I too started learning Rust with great optimism, and had the same experience: I expected that things would be difficult starting out, but assumed it would get easier as I acquired more knowledge, and then it didn't. Mostly this was for the same reasons as the author cites: Rust futures are incomprehensible, and there is rarely…
For a select few domains, Rust is a god-sent. But if the performance-critical aspects of what you're working on are already abstracted several layers away from you, you're probably better of using a language which hides all the book-keeping which Rust puts at the top level.
Rust is a better C, not a better C#.
I'm looking forward to the full article, because it's nice to know that I'm not alone here. I too started learning Rust with great optimism, and had the same experience: I expected that things would be difficult starting out, but assumed it would get easier as I acquired more knowledge, and then it didn't. Mostly this was for the same reasons as the author cites: Rust futures are incomprehensible, and there is rarely…
The most popular 3rd party promise framework in JavaScript collects extra cause and effect data when you run the code in development mode. It helps but it still isn’t always enough.
I fundamentally don’t understand how people still think writing tools and libraries is the same process as writing production code. Which is to say: I wrote it, I understand it, ship it!
It’s a profoundly different process. I don’t think we give enough kudos to the people who can do it well.
I keep telling my ambitious jr devs the same two pieces of advice. The one relevant here is: nobody is going to look at your code until something is broken. Which means they are already having a bad day. Don’t make it worse.
I'm looking forward to the full article, because it's nice to know that I'm not alone here. I too started learning Rust with great optimism, and had the same experience: I expected that things would be difficult starting out, but assumed it would get easier as I acquired more knowledge, and then it didn't. Mostly this was for the same reasons as the author cites: Rust futures are incomprehensible, and there is rarely…
"2014-11-28T21:00:09+09:00".parse::>()
let tz: Tz = "Europe/London".parse().unwrap()
let date = "2014-11-28T21:00:09Z".parse::>().with_timezone(&UTC)I'm looking forward to the full article, because it's nice to know that I'm not alone here. I too started learning Rust with great optimism, and had the same experience: I expected that things would be difficult starting out, but assumed it would get easier as I acquired more knowledge, and then it didn't. Mostly this was for the same reasons as the author cites: Rust futures are incomprehensible, and there is rarely…
Basically that performance hotspot where a managed runtime isn’t an option.
Rust is still new, it took C++ about 20 years to reach where it is, and even now there are domains where it cannot replace C for various reasons.
Wait, what? Rust has what I consider the best documentation I've seen of any language. The docs explain things at a high-level, but concisely, and have numerous examples. The formatting is good, the keyboard navigation support is good, it's well-linked, and it has convenient features like links to the source and the ability to collapse everything but method headers for easier browsing. And it's extremely easy to add docs to your own project.
Maybe there are some dark corners filled with poorly documented unstable APIs that I haven't seen?
Rust has some confusing concepts, and it does feel like you're fighting the compiler sometimes, but I can see what it's trying to achieve and it's improving very rapidly. I find that I can more-or-less stumble my way through it until I get where I want, as the documentation that is about is generally well-written, even if it doesn't cover everything yet :)
And it's kinda fun!
This is a 100 sentences rant with 0 substances. Literally, there are no examples at all of any "brick wall". Why was this even posted here?
I was following along until this: > universally terrible documentation and lacking examples, unstable APIs, type annotation hell, and so much more. The docs in Rust are by far some of the best I've seen, without specifics it's really hard to understand what issues he hit.
I was following along until this: > universally terrible documentation and lacking examples, unstable APIs, type annotation hell, and so much more. The docs in Rust are by far some of the best I've seen, without specifics it's really hard to understand what issues he hit.
They're completely different kind of docs that Python's. Python's are written by hand, with many examples and tips how to use the various tools. Rust's documentation very much feels generated, and the last time I checked methods were not grouped. So vast portions of a page are consumed by variants of methods (overloaded methods?) which work exactly the same except they take different argument type. Python documentati…
So you'd suggest adding a manner of grouping methods in rustdoc?