101–110 of 675 posts
What about catching integer overflow? Free open-source languages still cannot do it unlike they commercial competitors like Swift?
https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio... https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...
This seems a big silly. This is not a language issue. You can have a C++ library that does exactly all the things being shown here so that the application developer doesn't worry about. There would no C++ language features missing that would accomplish what you're able to do on the Rust side. So is this really a language comparison, or what libraries are available for each language platform? If the latter, that's fin…
The one thing that sold me on Rust (going from C++) was that there is a single way errors are propagated: the Result type. No need to bother with exceptions, functions returning bool, functions returning 0 on success, functions returning 0 on error, functions returning -1 on error, functions returning negative errno on error, functions taking optional pointer to bool to indicate error (optionally), functions taking r…
> The one thing that sold me on Rust (going from C++) was that there is a single way errors are propagated: the Result type. No need to bother with exceptions This isn't really true since Rust has panics. It would be nice to have out-of-the-box support for a "no panics" subset of Rust, which would also make it easier to properly support linear (no auto-drop) types.
Right. I attempted using Rust for trading-related code as well. However, I failed to write a dynamically linked always sorted order book where you can splice orders in the middle. It is just too dynamic for Rust. Borrow checker killed me. And don't get me started on dynamic graphs. I would happily use Rust over C++ if it had all other improvements but similar memory management. I am completely unproductive with Rust…
I have run into similar issues trying to build real applications. You end up spending more time arguing with the borrow checker than writing code.
But once you are _maintaining_ applications, man it really does feel like absolute magic. It's amazing how worry-free it feels in many respects.
Plus, once you do embrace it, become familiar, and start forward-thinking about these things, especially in areas that aren't every-nanosecond-counts performance-wise and can simply `Arc` and `.clone()` where you need to, it is really quite lovely and you do dramatically less fighting.
Rust is still missing a lot of features that other more-modern languages have, no doubt, but it's been a great ride in my experience.
This seems a big silly. This is not a language issue. You can have a C++ library that does exactly all the things being shown here so that the application developer doesn't worry about. There would no C++ language features missing that would accomplish what you're able to do on the Rust side. So is this really a language comparison, or what libraries are available for each language platform? If the latter, that's fin…
If the default is a loaded gun pointed at your foot, you're going to end up with lots of people missing a foot. "just git gud" isn't a solution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wish more people (and crate authors) would treat panic!() as it really should be treated: only for absolutely unrecoverable errors that indicate that some sort of state is corrupted and that continuing wouldn't be safe from a data- or program-integrity perspective. Even then, though, I do see a need to catch panics in some situations: if I'm writing some sort of API or web service, and there's some inconsistency in…
would you consider panics acceptable when you think it cannot panic in practice? e.g. unwraping/expecting a value for a key in a map when you inserted that value before and know it hasn't been removed? you could have a panic though, if you wrongly make assumptions
I will fight against program aborts as hard as I possibly can. I don't mind boilerplate to be the price paid and will provide detailed error messages even in such obscure error branches.
Again, speaking only for myself. My philosophy is: the program is no good for me dead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely, the compile times are the biggest drawback IMO. Everywhere I've been that built large systems in Rust eventually ends up spending a good amount of dev time trying to get CI/CD pipeline times to something sane. Besides developer productivity it can be an issue when you need a critical fix to go out quickly and your pipelines take 60+ minutes.
Don't use a single monolithic crate. Break your project up into multiple crates. Not only does this help with compile time (the individual crate compiles can be parallelized), it also tends to help with API design as well.
With some exceptions for core data structures, it seems that if you only modified a few files in a large project the total compilation time would be quick no matter how slow the compiler was.
The one thing that sold me on Rust (going from C++) was that there is a single way errors are propagated: the Result type. No need to bother with exceptions, functions returning bool, functions returning 0 on success, functions returning 0 on error, functions returning -1 on error, functions returning negative errno on error, functions taking optional pointer to bool to indicate error (optionally), functions taking r…
Back at Google, it was truly an error handling nirvana because they had StatusOr which makes sure that the error type is just Status, a standardized company-wide type that stills allows significant custom errors that map to standardized error categories.
I see an article about how strict typing is better, but what would really be nice here is named parameters. I never want to go back to anonymous parameters.