181–190 of 295 posts
I hope the ergonomics initiative takes it towards Java rather than Python. For all the hate it gets, Java's explicitness is a boon when maintaining large scale systems and preventing bugs.
> Right now, such a signature would be accepted, but if you tried to use any of map’s methods, you’d get an error that K needs to be Hash and Eq, and have to go back and add those bounds. That’s an example of the compiler being pedantic in a way that can interrupt your flow, and doesn’t really add anything; the fact that we’re using K as a hashmap key essentially forces some additional assumptions about the type. But…
Type inference should solve that if Go ever gets that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"If you're developing software for unsophisticated users it's obvious that you should be doing user testing" Compilers actually have a unique opportunity to introduce some form of opt-out tracking of all of the compilation errors with sources, etc. This could really help to understand the users.
No, that's not how it's done. Proper testing for computer usability involves video of the user and the screen. The important things to note are when the user stops, gets stuck, has to consult external references, asks for help, or gets upset. It's far too intrusive to impose on anyone not explicitly volunteering to do it.
My biggest and probably only real frustrating with Rust is that modules and crates live in the same namespace. That makes stuff incredibly confusing to teach and read. I can otherwise live with the explicit extern/mod if needed.
From moving from Perl to Rust, the only thing that I miss is the postfix "if": return true if number > 2; VS: if number > 2 { return true } I find that one-liners like these are really ergonomic.
ProTip: In both languages you can do the following: return number > 2;
return if($number > 2);
if($number > 2){
return;
}Great initiative By its very nature, Rust is harder (than let's say Python or JS). It is compiled, there's not much runtime magic to rely on and low level is hard. But thinking about this and trying to make it easier is important
I still can't get my head around rust. While all those features definitely make sense, I find it very confusing sometimes. Is there something like rust for c++ programmers?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Note that this is different from what's being asked, what's being asked is why they can't have fields like abstract classes that get appended to the original struct. That would make traits more like mixins. That RFC lets you declare fields that the trait implementor is supposed to provide; implementing a trait will not automatically add a field, instead, you will be forced to add such a field yourself (unless one alr…
While it's not what I asked, I actually like the answer as long as I can provide overrideable default methods in the that use the lvalues. I can't think of any of my own use cases that couldn't adequately be covered by it.
After writing Rust in production for a while, the biggest bugbear I have is the naming/file structure. I end up a lot with this; src/main.rs src/combobulator/mod.rs src/combobulator/tests.rs src/tests.rs src/somethingelse/tests.rs src/somethingelse/mod.rs Because I find tests in the same file a bit confusing. It's really easy with maven-style layouts to know that "only things in main/java or main/scala get compiled a…
I prefer to keep tests in a `mod tests { ... }` block at the end of the source file, which provides comparable benefits and separation. I also prefer to use `combobulator.rs` rather than `combobulator/mod.rs`, for multiple reasons including filename ambiguity. In this case, you'd have: src/main.rs src/combobulator.rs src/somethingelse.rs
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suppose the question then is, did writing Unix make C ergonomic? :)
Good question :) I think it did, though I'd be interested to hear an informed opinion.