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

Rust – A hard decision pays off

pinecone.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 386 posts

Re: Rust – A hard decision pays off

#251

Post by jimcavel888 »

peterkelly wrote: post #223
throwaway894345 wrote: post #41

> Dev velocity, which was supposed to be the claim to fame of Python, improved dramatically with Rust. I don't doubt this in the least. I've been a professional Python developer for 15 years, and I can't believe Python ever had the reputation for "high dev velocity" beyond toy examples. In every real world code base I've worked in, Python has been a strict liability and the promise that you can "just rewrite the slow…

A lot of people seem to believe that dynamically typed languages make development easier, because you don't have to worry about writing type annotations or going through the extra steps to fix compile-time errors. This is arguably true for small scripts, but for anything non-trivial I find that static typing means I can be more productive, because type errors are caught straight away (rather than potentially in produ…

No post body was provided.

Re: Rust – A hard decision pays off

#252

Post by kitsunesoba »

peterkelly wrote: post #223
throwaway894345 wrote: post #41

> Dev velocity, which was supposed to be the claim to fame of Python, improved dramatically with Rust. I don't doubt this in the least. I've been a professional Python developer for 15 years, and I can't believe Python ever had the reputation for "high dev velocity" beyond toy examples. In every real world code base I've worked in, Python has been a strict liability and the promise that you can "just rewrite the slow…

A lot of people seem to believe that dynamically typed languages make development easier, because you don't have to worry about writing type annotations or going through the extra steps to fix compile-time errors. This is arguably true for small scripts, but for anything non-trivial I find that static typing means I can be more productive, because type errors are caught straight away (rather than potentially in produ…

> for anything non-trivial I find that static typing means I can be more productive, because type errors are caught straight away (rather than potentially in production), and I can be much more confident in refactoring code because I know certain kinds of errors will be caught by during type checking.

Fully agreed. It's not quite the same as Rust vs. Python, but I've pulled off several sweeping refactors and rewrites in Swift codebases that I wouldn't dream of even attempting with Objective-C.

Re: Rust – A hard decision pays off

#253

Post by nazka »

jhgg wrote: post #159

Writing Rust at scale, I concur with some of these findings. Nowadays, my team exclusively writes Rust. Our rationale is two-fold. 1) We want to write software that is fast and inexpensive to run. Our rust services are quickly growing, but cumulatively, they remain in the sub-1000 core count, while processing many millions of requests per second across our service with excellent latency. 2) We want to write software…

I am curious which web framework do you use? Also do you use an ORM like diesel?

Re: Rust – A hard decision pays off

#254

Post by efnx »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #154
mamcx wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is in Rust this is totally ok. Is NOT un-idiomatic to mix imperative + functional paradigms in the same block.

Agreed, but I think people make too big a deal about iterators. The simple for loops that they’re fit to replace aren’t that hard to read or write, so they aren’t causing real problems, and on the more complex end you’re writing imperative stuff anyway. Iterators certainly aren’t a bad thing, but they’re not the game changer that Go-critics made them out to be in all of the Rust-vs-Go debates.

The selling point of iterators isn’t that they replace for loops, it’s that you can make new iterators by implementing a trait. That at way downstream users can use your iterators in a for loop. Of course you also can use a more functional style if you like.

Re: Rust – A hard decision pays off

#255

Post by dang »

AtNightWeCode wrote: post #250
dang wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you please avoid flamebait comments and make your substantive points thoughtfully, per https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ? We don't want flamewars here. Programming language flamewars are especially tedious.

Not sure what you are talking about. When I learned C back in the 90’s I was learned to handle every error state by hand. Exactly as you are expected to do in Go about 30 years later. And it sucks. Maybe you can explain why Gophers are such whiners always crying about every freaking comment at any forum.

Can you please just not post like this? We're trying for a different kind of forum. I know it feels justified, and I'm sure it is, but the problem is the 'other' side always has its legitimate justifications too, and then everyone goes after each other and there's no more curious exchange.

Re: Rust – A hard decision pays off

#256

Post by fwip »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #128
sitkack wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Go replaces your Python this easily, you have always been writing Go. The abstractions available in Python are in a totally different class than that of Go. Nothing you said is verifiable.

> Nothing you said is verifiable. Right, I was pretty explicitly speaking from experience. See my first paragraph. > If Go replaces your Python this easily, you have always been writing Go Go is only a 10 year old language, and I've been writing Python professionally for 15 years. I definitely have more hours on Python by a wide margin. > The abstractions available in Python are in a totally different class than that…

I think the intent of saying "you've always been writing Go" was along the lines of "you can write FORTRAN in any language." E.g, implying that you are not making use of Python's abstractions, but writing it in the same procedural style you would write Go (or C) code in.

Re: Rust – A hard decision pays off

#257

Post by [deleted] »

benreesman wrote: post #110
fkarg wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but it's the same with every hype: there's something at its core and might be worth checking out

Oh I think a hype like this comes along once or twice in a career. Java was every bit as revolutionary in its day and had Sun Microsystems (they were a Big Deal) pouring every spare dollar into fluff pieces about it and it still never achieved a true Jehovah’s Witness vibe.

[deleted]

Re: Rust – A hard decision pays off

#258

Post by jhgg »

nprateem wrote: post #115
Jack_rando_fang wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. I still give Python credit for allowing us to write software in an extremely efficient way. But after I wrote the initial version of the software with Python, I always procrastinate on testing, fixing existing issues, and as the software grows larger I simply want to give up as the different issues keep piling up. In comparison, Rust code usually just works out of the box due to the error handling and type sy…

Don't you find thinking about the borrow checker unnecessary overhead while prototyping?

No. Not anymore. 4 years in and I maybe run into a borrow checker issue very rarely in a given week.

Once you understand how the borrow checker works and how to write/structure your code in a way that the borrow checker is happy with it sort of becomes second nature.

I think by side effect coding in this style does lend itself to simply writing better to understand code. Nowadays I just write my code this way without much thought. It happens effortlessly. I find myself writing programs in other languages like I would in Rust nowadays.

This is compared to when I started and ran into borrow checking issues many times a day. Additionally the borrow checker has improved since then and NLL borrow checker will accept more programs as valid than the previous one.

Re: Rust – A hard decision pays off

#259

Post by nindalf »

ncmncm wrote: post #240
nindalf wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem quite certain of your opinions, especially that Rust will fizzle out. I'll bet $100 that in 2025 - it's still used at Meta, Google, Amazon and other large companies. Once a language gains critical mass at a large, profitable company it will be maintained one way or another. - It will be used in the Linux kernel as well. If you have any other objective measures of usage/popularity/usefulness, I'd like to hear…

Every language you can think of, and many you can't, are in use somewhere at every large company. That is no distinction at all. So, no bet. If it gets into the Linux kernel in any capacity, obviously it will still be in there as long as anybody still uses whatever it does. That, also, is no distinction at all. So, no bet. I am not expressing opinions. I am expressing observations, and expectations that seem to follo…

You say this language will fail because most languages fail. Ok, make a falsifiable statement and I'll take a bet on that.

Re: Rust – A hard decision pays off

#260

Post by lmeyerov »

Something I still struggle to understand with these systems is why indexing 1-10M things is hard / their sweet spot, when that is basically a small dataframe in pandas or a small SQLite, vs the 10B+ rowa // GBs+ I was expecting them to be discussing
Post reply on HN