No post body was provided.
Rust 2024 the Year of Everywhere?
11–20 of 206 posts
Re: Rust 2024 the Year of Everywhere?
#12My theory is that every technology that is too complex gets replaced with something that does the same thing more simply. You see this relentlessly in the JavaScript ecosystem where waves of too-complex tools get rapidly replaced with something else, only to be swept away again when someone finds an even more simple way to do the same thing.
This must be the fate of Rust - eventually it will be replaced with a language that gives the memory and thread safety without the melt-your-brain complexity.
I want a simpler version of Rust.
It's too hard.
Is it possible to create a truly safe language without the dizzying complexity? Or is it the complexity a baseline requirement?
I wonder if there is a subset of Rust that can be extracted someone into a new, minimal language with the core benefits.
Re: Rust 2024 the Year of Everywhere?
#13My theory is that every technology that is too complex gets replaced with something that does the same thing more simply. You see this relentlessly in the JavaScript ecosystem where waves of too-complex tools get rapidly replaced with something else, only to be swept away again when someone finds an even more simple way to do the same thing. This must be the fate of Rust - eventually it will be replaced with a langua…
Writing Rust/Actix for server code is a breeze. There's zero complexity. It's practically Java, just with a more Ruby-like syntax.
Entirely depends on what you're building.
Edit: You can have a small Actix app up over the weekend and never touch "lifetimes" until you're ready.
Re: Rust 2024 the Year of Everywhere?
#14I'm just sitting here learning c++.
Re: Rust 2024 the Year of Everywhere?
#15My theory is that every technology that is too complex gets replaced with something that does the same thing more simply. You see this relentlessly in the JavaScript ecosystem where waves of too-complex tools get rapidly replaced with something else, only to be swept away again when someone finds an even more simple way to do the same thing. This must be the fate of Rust - eventually it will be replaced with a langua…
Writing Rust/Actix for server code is a breeze. There's zero complexity. It's practically Java, just with a more Ruby-like syntax. Entirely depends on what you're building. Edit: You can have a small Actix app up over the weekend and never touch "lifetimes" until you're ready.
After my initial failed attempt to learn Rust I then took a second shot at it by writing Actix web code and had alot more success. This is the path I would take if I was returning to Rust.
Having said that, I felt that for the most part this approach was just avoiding the task of learning the complexities. But, I do believe that learning something hard starts by learning a little bit of it and building on that initial foothold.
Re: Rust 2024 the Year of Everywhere?
#16Rust is so simple and elegant.
Was it simple and elegant from the beginning, or did it click at some point? I started learning it from the O'Reily book yesterday, and so far it's easily the steepest learning curve for a language.
Re: Rust 2024 the Year of Everywhere?
#17My theory is that every technology that is too complex gets replaced with something that does the same thing more simply. You see this relentlessly in the JavaScript ecosystem where waves of too-complex tools get rapidly replaced with something else, only to be swept away again when someone finds an even more simple way to do the same thing. This must be the fate of Rust - eventually it will be replaced with a langua…
Writing Rust/Actix for server code is a breeze. There's zero complexity. It's practically Java, just with a more Ruby-like syntax. Entirely depends on what you're building. Edit: You can have a small Actix app up over the weekend and never touch "lifetimes" until you're ready.
> Entirely depends on what you're building.
Exactly this, if you are building some CRUD app then it's as easy as using Java or Go etc, because basically there you have request -> contact some db -> return result, maybe do some processing of that data, so no need to fight borrow checker at all. But if you build something like multiplayer game server with lots of state of 3D world that constantly changes and interacts with itself, that is operating on self referencing data structures etc then it's not as easy as in GC language.
Re: Rust 2024 the Year of Everywhere?
#18My theory is that every technology that is too complex gets replaced with something that does the same thing more simply. You see this relentlessly in the JavaScript ecosystem where waves of too-complex tools get rapidly replaced with something else, only to be swept away again when someone finds an even more simple way to do the same thing. This must be the fate of Rust - eventually it will be replaced with a langua…
>I want a simpler version of Rust.
Some relevant reading: https://without.boats/blog/revisiting-a-smaller-rust/
Re: Rust 2024 the Year of Everywhere?
#19My theory is that every technology that is too complex gets replaced with something that does the same thing more simply. You see this relentlessly in the JavaScript ecosystem where waves of too-complex tools get rapidly replaced with something else, only to be swept away again when someone finds an even more simple way to do the same thing. This must be the fate of Rust - eventually it will be replaced with a langua…
> I want a simpler version of Rust.
C arguably is, considering the analyses done on programs in C are not precluded from being super stringent, perhaps as stringent with compiler-specific flags?
Re: Rust 2024 the Year of Everywhere?
#20My theory is that every technology that is too complex gets replaced with something that does the same thing more simply. You see this relentlessly in the JavaScript ecosystem where waves of too-complex tools get rapidly replaced with something else, only to be swept away again when someone finds an even more simple way to do the same thing. This must be the fate of Rust - eventually it will be replaced with a langua…
I'm currently learning Rust (as a distinctly average programmer) and I think I agree. I put that so tentatively because I have experienced something of what Rust advocates claim - ie. when I've battled just trying to get a module to work at all for a while, but then when it does fit together (in a rather pleasing way, like gears snicking neatly together), it just continues to work. So I don't rule out the possibility that with more experience the fitting-together experiences will overtop the ugh-this-is-difficult ones, and I will become another Rust enthuser.
But on the other hand I'm often driven mad by the complexity, not so much of the language, but the libraries. There are several very popular & foundational ones I've used where I've literally not once managed to get anything working by following the incomprehensible docs, only by chasing up blog and forum posts in the desperate hope of finding a usable snippet.
Then there is the community, which despite its reputation for inclusiveness, is insufferably smug (for genuinely pleasant communities, try Elixir or Clojure). If you say something is difficult, they'll just inform you it's not, therefore by implication you must be thick or obtuse.