171–180 of 303 posts
yes I can trick for size etc, but overall it just did not fit well so far, for the embedded space that is, but, 'system-programming language' has many use cases in embedded field.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've encountered this pretty-much every time that I've learned a new language or framework. I start out trying to use it the way I've used things before, and then I slowly learn how the people who wrote it expect me to work, and then things get a lot easier.
That too and I don't think I'm even done with that, myself :) What I meant is the step away from the notion that things are objects, stuff gets done with methods, methods are available via mixins/ inheritance/ magic, etc. I've seen the notion of using values and pure functions as data oriented programming recently but never understood what that moniker adds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean it depends . Many of aspects of Rust that are perceived as sharp edges are in fact the programmer bringing in their preferences and paradigms from other languages and trying to program that way in Rust. I was one of those and tried to do OOP in Rust. It was a pain. At some point I gave up and was like: "Okay Rust, I do it your way, I just want this to work". And it worked flawlessly and easy. I literally had t…
Rust actually supports most OOP features, with the main exception of implementation inheritance. And implementation inheritance is a nasty footgun in large-scale software systems (search around for: "fragile base class problem"), in a way that just doesn't apply to simple composition and pure interfaces (traits). So it's hard to fault Rust for including the latter and not the former.
I do wonder whether this is as much of a problem as people think. Most of the time it only becomes a problem when people start doing stupid things to override the parent instead of refactoring a new class out from under it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes it does, OOP is a spectrum not "like Java does it".
I'd consider something OOP if it has the same expressive power i.e. things expressible in OOP languages are easily expressible in another OOP language as well. And for Rust that's not the case. Otherwise you end up with Haskell is an OOP language.
If I could use Cargo/cxx_build as my C++ build system (which I think may be possible, but I haven't seen a good example), I would fully embrace rust & start incorporating it into my professional work today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rust actually supports most OOP features, with the main exception of implementation inheritance. And implementation inheritance is a nasty footgun in large-scale software systems (search around for: "fragile base class problem"), in a way that just doesn't apply to simple composition and pure interfaces (traits). So it's hard to fault Rust for including the latter and not the former.
For me it was the web-of-pointers strategy I had to unlearn. A child object keeping a pointer to its parent is misery in Rust. It forces you to either make the child completely independent or really prove the parent will be around until the child disappears. 90% of the time this is dumb overhead, but 10% of the time it found a bug in some edge case, so I learned to appreciate it as a tough teacher, and my designs got…
Sounds kind of like Stockholm syndrome
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What Rust web libraries/frameworks do you use and recommend? How long does your Rust project take to compile?
> What Rust web libraries/frameworks do you use and recommend? This might not be a satisfying answer for you, but I use my own framework. Its main selling point is that it can be compiled in two modes: during development it has zero dependencies and is blazingly fast to compile (it has its own minimal HTTP implementation, its own minimal executor, etc.), and for production it switches to use production-ready crates w…
I think that's a great solution because the biggest thing that makes me afraid of Rust webdev is compile times. Your solution seems perfect as you can get quick compile times during development.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean it depends . Many of aspects of Rust that are perceived as sharp edges are in fact the programmer bringing in their preferences and paradigms from other languages and trying to program that way in Rust. I was one of those and tried to do OOP in Rust. It was a pain. At some point I gave up and was like: "Okay Rust, I do it your way, I just want this to work". And it worked flawlessly and easy. I literally had t…
Having studied mostly OOP/Java at the uni, and been using mostly C# at work, I realized I might actually start to find programming fun again through Go. I've studied it a bit recently and this idea of interfaces with composition over inheritance etc. made somehow a lot more sense to me, and gave me this boost to try and learn it more because it felt so enjoyable. Not even with some practical problem at hand to solve,…
Go has it's strengths, but IMO fun isn't one of them. It turns into soul-suck quickly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is no different than using interfaces, protocols, pure virtual base classes....
It's similar, but there are some differences. Notably, my package can implement my trait for your type, while my package (usually? always?) cannot make your type inherit from my virtual base class.