61–70 of 352 posts
I tried Rust about a month ago. The language itself is amazing, the pattern matching is super expressive, the borrow checker is incredible in the kinds of errors it can pick up on, and rust-analyzer is leagues beyond where RLS was. But... the compile times are an absolute non-starter for me. I'm the kind of guy that likes to re-run his code continually to see if it validates to what I expect it to be doing. In Rust,…
I tried Rust about a month ago. The language itself is amazing, the pattern matching is super expressive, the borrow checker is incredible in the kinds of errors it can pick up on, and rust-analyzer is leagues beyond where RLS was. But... the compile times are an absolute non-starter for me. I'm the kind of guy that likes to re-run his code continually to see if it validates to what I expect it to be doing. In Rust,…
> I'm the kind of guy that likes to re-run his code continually to see if it validates to what I expect it to be doing This honestly is a bad habit. Thought it does depend quite a bit on the type of work you are doing. For some things it is necessary especially if it is inherently fibbly. Rust is a language to which the programmer must adapt his way of working and thinking. If the programmer is too set in his way, hi…
[Citation needed]
I tried Rust about a month ago. The language itself is amazing, the pattern matching is super expressive, the borrow checker is incredible in the kinds of errors it can pick up on, and rust-analyzer is leagues beyond where RLS was. But... the compile times are an absolute non-starter for me. I'm the kind of guy that likes to re-run his code continually to see if it validates to what I expect it to be doing. In Rust,…
Once you get your cache warm, it's pretty much instant. If not, run `cargo check` instead of `cargo run`. You can also use rust-analyser for an in-editor <1s feedback loop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's an issue for warm caches as well. I had a 10 second compilation cycle to add a comment to a file in a project with a couple hundred lines of code and like 4 lines in my cargo.toml. 10 seconds! For a few hundred lines! Maybe that doesn't sound insane, but extrapolating out, that's at least 100x worse than the languages that I'm used to. (I know that compilation speed is a Hard Problem, I know that I'm compari…
If it is a project you’ve recently built, it shouldn’t matter what’s in your cargo file, since none of that will change from build to build. I wonder what’s broken. How long does it take to build a new empty project? One think that’s helped me stay “in the flow” is switching to rust-analyzer instead of the current official RLS. Much faster, I leave format on save turned on, so `cargo check` output is usually ready in…
I LOVE rust-analyzer. It's actually what got me to reconsider Rust after I tried a year or two ago, and it is SO good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's an issue for warm caches as well. I had a 10 second compilation cycle to add a comment to a file in a project with a couple hundred lines of code and like 4 lines in my cargo.toml. 10 seconds! For a few hundred lines! Maybe that doesn't sound insane, but extrapolating out, that's at least 100x worse than the languages that I'm used to. (I know that compilation speed is a Hard Problem, I know that I'm compari…
> I had a 10 second compilation cycle to add a comment to a file in a project with a couple hundred lines of code and like 4 lines in my cargo.toml. Why compile again after adding a comment?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm the kind of guy that likes to re-run his code continually to see if it validates to what I expect it to be doing. I used to be the same way, but the more I practiced holding the state in my head while I worked, the better I got at it. > One group loves fast compile times and quickly validating hypotheses. You just don't need it. As you make changes, the delta between expected behavior and actual behavior contin…
>I used to be the same way, but the more I practiced holding the state in my head while I worked, the better I got at it. Doesn't that partially defeat the point of having a powerful compiler? The more work the compiler does, the less we have to keep track of in our head (and conversely, much of the pain of coding in a language like Python is the amount of stuff we need to mentally keep track of).
I think this is somewhat orthogonal.
It's an alternative to a myriad of small, unaudited libraries. Rust does have some projects going to audit those small libraries, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a datapoint for your hypothesis, when working in a typed language I will build my code only a few times a day. I much prefer working from a logical and thoughtful approach rather than iteration. At the point where I start a build I am already reasonably confident that it will do what I want it to. There are some bugs where I will need to re-build several times consecutively but these are relatively rare for me (I…
That's really interesting. Compiling only a few times a day is mind boggling to me - in a normal day I'd probably average hundreds to a thousand compilation cycles! The main thing that I use compiling for is to validate little off-by-one things. Like, is substring() exclusive on the second parameter? What about range syntax and the slice operator? What if I wrote + 1 instead of - 1 somewhere, or did < instead of <=?…
Remember the mantra from the 2010's when the dynamic typing craze? Rust is not about optimizing developer time, it's about guaranteeing safety for base sysstems software.
All this permanent reasoning about ownership, borrowing and so on makes it the greatest contender against C++ (hence Mozilla and Microsoft support) but in terms of productivity you'd be best served with a higher level, GC-collected platform for an application.
I tried Rust about a month ago. The language itself is amazing, the pattern matching is super expressive, the borrow checker is incredible in the kinds of errors it can pick up on, and rust-analyzer is leagues beyond where RLS was. But... the compile times are an absolute non-starter for me. I'm the kind of guy that likes to re-run his code continually to see if it validates to what I expect it to be doing. In Rust,…
> I'm the kind of guy that likes to re-run his code continually to see if it validates to what I expect it to be doing This honestly is a bad habit. Thought it does depend quite a bit on the type of work you are doing. For some things it is necessary especially if it is inherently fibbly. Rust is a language to which the programmer must adapt his way of working and thinking. If the programmer is too set in his way, hi…
I'd like to hear some justification for this rather than a blanket assertion. Just because our work styles differ doesn't mean that my style is necessarily wrong.
> Rust is a language to which the programmer must adapt his way of working and thinking.
I mean, Rust is actively attempting to improve compile times. It's not like devs made them intentionally long to cultivate good programming habits or something. So I'm not sure how this is relevant.