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

Rust is for Professionals

gregoryszorc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 157 posts

Re: Rust is for Professionals

#31

Post by wyldfire »

CJefferson wrote: post #16
ahelwer wrote: post #12

Here I am on day three of an attempt to modify a rust program with logic that would have taken about twenty minutes to implement in C# or Java. It has to do with operations on strings (use a regex to find a string in some text, escape all the regex-reserved characters in that string, then use the string as a regex to find other occurrences of itself in the text) so I get that I'm really thrown into the borrow-checker…

While this can be painful, my basic suggestion -- clone more. The temptation is to never clone, butin C++ people run copy constructors all the time without thinking about it (as they are called automatically).

I clone all the time to make the borrow checker leave me alone. If this code shows up as a hot spot in a profile I can spend the extra energy to optimize it.

I hope to evolve my understanding so that I can do the right thing at design time to minimize unnecessary clone()s.

Re: Rust is for Professionals

#32

Post by modeless »

ahelwer wrote: post #12

Here I am on day three of an attempt to modify a rust program with logic that would have taken about twenty minutes to implement in C# or Java. It has to do with operations on strings (use a regex to find a string in some text, escape all the regex-reserved characters in that string, then use the string as a regex to find other occurrences of itself in the text) so I get that I'm really thrown into the borrow-checker…

I had a similar experience. It really made me question whether the borrow checker is worth it. I'm all for memory safety, but there are some pretty compelling low pause GCs out there now that can give you memory safety without the ergonomic problems.

Re: Rust is for Professionals

#33

Post by toby »

xena wrote: post #24
ocschwar wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cloning means runtime inefficiency, but the cost is so pathetically small compared to the amount of code we run in Python and Java with their larger footprints. Yes. Clone more.

Doesn't the compiler optimize out clones when it can?

There's a Cargo tool called "clippy" which will tell you if it finds unnecessary clones.

Re: Rust is for Professionals

#34

Post by noisy_boy »

> You see practices cargo culted across the decades (like the 80 character terminal/line width and null-terminated strings, which can both be traced back to Hollerith punchcards from the late 19th century)

I limit my lines to 80 chars for more practical reasons. I have a wide-screen 43" monitor and restricting content to 80 columns allows me to have the project/navigation pane + 4 vertical splits side by side. Couple of those vertical splits can be split horizontally and I can see/edit, say, 6 open files at once without any switching of windows. Probably sounds like overkill but once you experience it, you know its worth it. Plus my eyes like less horizontal scanning too.

Re: Rust is for Professionals

#35

Post by lmilcin »

> The statement Rust is for Professionals does not imply any logical variant thereof. e.g. I am not implying Rust is not for non-professionals. Rather, the subject/thesis merely defines the audience I want to speak to: people who spend a lot of time authoring, maintaining, and supporting software and are invested in its longer-term outcomes.

I think the title is a little bit misleading and paired with the first sentence invites flame, but this one in the middle of article sums it up much better.

With some languages you pay some special costs that are only recovered for certain types of applications.

For example, programming in C is slow, tedious and bug-prone (as compared to Python) but it is easier to solve some types of problems (like writing system software, controlling memory layout for performance, conserve resources, etc.) For most projects the cost may be too high but if you are one of certain types of projects the pros will outweigh the cons.

In general, when programming with strong types you pay for long term maintainability (ability to automatically ascertain correct type of object at any point and extra features that come from it).

In Rust you pay even more for even more benefit in controlling the types and ownership of the data which means this environment should be thought as geared even more towards long term maintainability.

Re: Rust is for Professionals

#37

Post by devit »

ahelwer wrote: post #12

Here I am on day three of an attempt to modify a rust program with logic that would have taken about twenty minutes to implement in C# or Java. It has to do with operations on strings (use a regex to find a string in some text, escape all the regex-reserved characters in that string, then use the string as a regex to find other occurrences of itself in the text) so I get that I'm really thrown into the borrow-checker…

That seems rather trivial, and I'm not sure how you could possibly have any issues with the borrow checker.

Just do the first regex search, then escape into a String with regex::escape, then build a regex from the String and search with it.

Of course what you are doing is probably wrong since you should use a string matching crate rather than escaping characters and using a regex matching crate.

Re: Rust is for Professionals

#38

Post by msla »

mnd999 wrote: post #20

I skimmed it, but I think what the author is getting at is that rust demands rigour. The kind of rigour required when failure is a problem and this tends to be the kind of code people get paid to write. I guess the reverse is also true, if you’re writing the kind of code where failure doesn’t matter (e.g. spikes, experimentation, just messing about) perhaps rust isn’t the best choice.

> I skimmed it, but I think what the author is getting at is that rust demands rigour.

C demands rigor, too, but we're not talking about C because C compilers don't hold your hand and show you where your rigor slipped. Which is a sign C demands more rigor than Rust, isn't it? It's a problem with the author's argument: It's better to say that both C and Rust demand rigor, because they both compile to low-overhead executables (lower-overhead than C++, certainly), but Rust has more handrails and warning signs than C, so it's less dangerous.

Re: Rust is for Professionals

#39

Post by ahelwer »

sanxiyn wrote: post #26
ahelwer wrote: post #12

Here I am on day three of an attempt to modify a rust program with logic that would have taken about twenty minutes to implement in C# or Java. It has to do with operations on strings (use a regex to find a string in some text, escape all the regex-reserved characters in that string, then use the string as a regex to find other occurrences of itself in the text) so I get that I'm really thrown into the borrow-checker…

You can't learn Rust by StackOverflow, that just doesn't work. It is well known, I repeat this everytime I see it happening, and they never listen. It's deeply frustrating.

I mean yeah, that's why I went and read a bunch of the book. But I still run into lots of issues. Like what the hell is a borrow cow and when would I want to use it? And how do I fix the "temporary value dropped when borrowed" error in a series of maps on options?

Re: Rust is for Professionals

#40

Post by dman »

CJefferson wrote: post #16
ahelwer wrote: post #12

Here I am on day three of an attempt to modify a rust program with logic that would have taken about twenty minutes to implement in C# or Java. It has to do with operations on strings (use a regex to find a string in some text, escape all the regex-reserved characters in that string, then use the string as a regex to find other occurrences of itself in the text) so I get that I'm really thrown into the borrow-checker…

While this can be painful, my basic suggestion -- clone more. The temptation is to never clone, butin C++ people run copy constructors all the time without thinking about it (as they are called automatically).

People do think about this all the time in C++ and it is very common to get code review comments about avoiding copies if you overlook such things.
Post reply on HN