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

The struggle with Rust

ayende.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 301 posts

Re: The struggle with Rust

#31

Post by gcp »

rubber_duck wrote: post #27
gcp wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm hoping Rust doesn't go down this path as I want a replacement for C++ badly. So that's opposed to C++'s "It takes a few years to get acquainted to the language enough that people would want your stuff in production code"? Nobody hires junior C++ programmers.

The problem with writing C++ is not so much the language as it is the problem domain - writing C++ as "C with some syntax sugar" is possible and a popular method by people who don't care about C++ complexity. And it gets you to results fast. Having something work right away and deal with the edge cases when you encounter them is preferable in a lot of scenarios - especially while learning, but also as a principle of…

Is it common for code that fits those requirements to require C++ or Rust, though? Particularly in terms of performance?

Re: The struggle with Rust

#32

Post by crdoconnor »

rubber_duck wrote: post #22
adwhit wrote: post #5

These sorts of articles are starting to pop up a bit more frequently, presumably because Rust is starting to get a bit of traction. The theme is "I know $LOW_LEVEL_LANGUAGE therefore I should be able to program Rust. I spent a few days and couldn't. I don't like Rust." Unfortunately, things aren't that simple and Rust really is different from other languages. It takes months of steady investment (and yes, frustration…

>It takes months of steady investment (and yes, frustration), but the payoffs are spectacular. This was the exact same thing I kept reading back when functional programming was becoming in vogue - people were pushing for Haskell, saying that purity and laziness were amazing, type system could almost prove correctness at compile time, etc. etc. You just need to meditate deeply on category theory and draw direction gra…

The clincher for me with respect to rust is that I see a steady stream of useful software being developed in it.

I never really saw that in Haskell and I've heard people talking about it for at least 15 years. That indicates that something is missing.

Re: The struggle with Rust

#33

Post by rubber_duck »

gcp wrote: post #31
rubber_duck wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with writing C++ is not so much the language as it is the problem domain - writing C++ as "C with some syntax sugar" is possible and a popular method by people who don't care about C++ complexity. And it gets you to results fast. Having something work right away and deal with the edge cases when you encounter them is preferable in a lot of scenarios - especially while learning, but also as a principle of…

Is it common for code that fits those requirements to require C++ or Rust, though? Particularly in terms of performance?

Depends on the industry, from my experience in gamedev - yes.

Re: The struggle with Rust

#34

Post by rubber_duck »

crdoconnor wrote: post #32
rubber_duck wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It takes months of steady investment (and yes, frustration), but the payoffs are spectacular. This was the exact same thing I kept reading back when functional programming was becoming in vogue - people were pushing for Haskell, saying that purity and laziness were amazing, type system could almost prove correctness at compile time, etc. etc. You just need to meditate deeply on category theory and draw direction gra…

The clincher for me with respect to rust is that I see a steady stream of useful software being developed in it. I never really saw that in Haskell and I've heard people talking about it for at least 15 years. That indicates that something is missing.

This makes me hopeful about Rust as well.

Re: The struggle with Rust

#35

Post by sgift »

justinlaster wrote: post #21

>So I spent a few evenings with Rust I stopped reading. There is literally nothing you could possibly say that'd be worthwhile after "a few evenings" with Rust, especially when you lack the proper background in the first place. This trend of "The problem with Rust: A naive and inexperienced perspective"-esque articles is already old.

I read a bit further, it doesn't get better and my summary would be: Rust isn't C++, doing things the C++ way in Rust is not easy, therefore it requires too much ceremony to do what I want and is too hard.

Re: The struggle with Rust

#36

Post by cillian64 »

rubber_duck wrote: post #28
the_af wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You just need to meditate deeply on category theory and draw direction graphs to become one with types and all would be revealed to you. In order to just use Haskell you don't need to meditate about category theory at all. Some things do require months -- or even years -- of studying. Like, for example, C++, Java or whatever was your first programming language. There is absolutely no getting around that.

Yes but going from one to the other is relatively straightforward and possible in small steps of progression - Rust forces you to deal with a lot of things up front which is why people complain. eg. if you're a C++ developer you'll pick up Java very fast, it will take a while to be super productive but you can start working really fast.

C++ and Java are a bad example as they are unusually similar. Consider moving between C++, Python, and Javascript: on that scale, Rust doesn't seem so far out.

Re: The struggle with Rust

#37

Post by gravypod »

Could the issues of rust be rectified with a better theorem proved that goes past "2 things are touching this"? I don't think I'd mind if the compiler said "your code will not work because eventually it will modify the same bytes at the same time and create an unpredictable state" but I will mind if it says "your not good because you have two mutable references.

Re: The struggle with Rust

#38

Post by rubber_duck »

ique wrote: post #29
rubber_duck wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It takes months of steady investment (and yes, frustration), but the payoffs are spectacular. This was the exact same thing I kept reading back when functional programming was becoming in vogue - people were pushing for Haskell, saying that purity and laziness were amazing, type system could almost prove correctness at compile time, etc. etc. You just need to meditate deeply on category theory and draw direction gra…

So you're saying it's perfectly feasible to become an expert C++ programmer over a weekend, but it's completely impossible to learn Haskell?

OP says he's a C# programmer and doing the solution in C++ was straightforward and he had the time to test it + look for C++ patterns.

First weeks in Haskell as an average joe programmer you'll spend getting your brain wrapped around lazy eval being the default.

Re: The struggle with Rust

#39

Post by wiremine »

adwhit wrote: post #5

These sorts of articles are starting to pop up a bit more frequently, presumably because Rust is starting to get a bit of traction. The theme is "I know $LOW_LEVEL_LANGUAGE therefore I should be able to program Rust. I spent a few days and couldn't. I don't like Rust." Unfortunately, things aren't that simple and Rust really is different from other languages. It takes months of steady investment (and yes, frustration…

> It takes months of steady investment (and yes, frustration), but the payoffs are spectacular.

In my experience, most developers can't or won't put in this sort of investment. Which leads me to wonder what fields/niches will Rust land in?

This might change if, as other commenters have stated, it is taught as a first or second language, but that doesn't seem likely anytime soon...

Re: The struggle with Rust

#40

Post by vertex-four »

rubber_duck wrote: post #22
adwhit wrote: post #5

These sorts of articles are starting to pop up a bit more frequently, presumably because Rust is starting to get a bit of traction. The theme is "I know $LOW_LEVEL_LANGUAGE therefore I should be able to program Rust. I spent a few days and couldn't. I don't like Rust." Unfortunately, things aren't that simple and Rust really is different from other languages. It takes months of steady investment (and yes, frustration…

>It takes months of steady investment (and yes, frustration), but the payoffs are spectacular. This was the exact same thing I kept reading back when functional programming was becoming in vogue - people were pushing for Haskell, saying that purity and laziness were amazing, type system could almost prove correctness at compile time, etc. etc. You just need to meditate deeply on category theory and draw direction gra…

> You just need to meditate deeply on category theory and draw direction graphs to become one with types and all would be revealed to you.

Luckily, Rust's community is much more pragmatic - but their goals are still to create something substantially different from existing languages because existing languages are not enough to guarantee what Rust guarantees.

Post reply on HN