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

Flattening Rust’s learning curve

corrode.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–405 of 405 posts

Re: Flattening Rust’s learning curve

#401

Post by darthrupert »

int_19h wrote: post #388
darthrupert wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other side where this question is not asked we have things like > "1" + 2 3 And it's utter madness that everyone does anything important with languages like that.

Python 3.11.12 (main, Apr 8 2025, 14:15:29) [Clang 16.0.0 (clang-1600.0.26.6)] on darwin Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. >>> "1" + 2 Traceback (most recent call last): File " ", line 1, in TypeError: can only concatenate str (not "int") to str

Yes, python has strong typing and in that sense passes this bar. It's a fine choice for many things, and if you enforce certain things in CI, it can be a good choice for many more.

Re: Flattening Rust’s learning curve

#402

Post by geokon »

Animats wrote: post #18

It's like reading "A Discipline of Programming", by Dijkstra. That morality play approach was needed back then, because nobody knew how to think about this stuff. Most explanations of ownership in Rust are far too wordy. See [1]. The core concepts are mostly there, but hidden under all the examples. - Each data object in Rust has exactly one owner. - Ownership can be transferred in ways that preserve the one-owner ru…

I don't do Rust, but I feel there must be more to it that's missing in your description b/c what you wrote sounds exactly like a C++ smart pointer?

With the exception of the last point (which I can't imagine tacking on in C++)

Maybe I'm missing some subtle point?

Re: Flattening Rust’s learning curve

#403

Post by steveklabnik »

geokon wrote: post #402
Animats wrote: post #18

It's like reading "A Discipline of Programming", by Dijkstra. That morality play approach was needed back then, because nobody knew how to think about this stuff. Most explanations of ownership in Rust are far too wordy. See [1]. The core concepts are mostly there, but hidden under all the examples. - Each data object in Rust has exactly one owner. - Ownership can be transferred in ways that preserve the one-owner ru…

I don't do Rust, but I feel there must be more to it that's missing in your description b/c what you wrote sounds exactly like a C++ smart pointer? With the exception of the last point (which I can't imagine tacking on in C++) Maybe I'm missing some subtle point?

They're very similar at this level of abstraction, the final one is the biggest point.

Re: Flattening Rust’s learning curve

#404

Post by nchmy »

tacitusarc wrote: post #400
nchmy wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Academic circles? That's how it is just used in general. You're the anomaly.

To clarify, you believe the common use of “steep learning curve” means easy to learn?

I was objecting to your definition of effort vs expertise. It's quite obviously expertise vs time/experience.

This is described in this wiki article that was linked in another comment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_curve

Which also points out how people rarely use the term properly, and call something difficult to learn a "steep" learning curve. It's the opposite.

Re: Flattening Rust’s learning curve

#405

Post by nayuki »

bombela wrote: post #393
Animats wrote: post #18

It's like reading "A Discipline of Programming", by Dijkstra. That morality play approach was needed back then, because nobody knew how to think about this stuff. Most explanations of ownership in Rust are far too wordy. See [1]. The core concepts are mostly there, but hidden under all the examples. - Each data object in Rust has exactly one owner. - Ownership can be transferred in ways that preserve the one-owner ru…

I usually teach it by translating it to our physical world by way of an object like a book, which I like to think is intuitive. I have a book. I own it. I can read it, and write into the margin. Tear the pages off if I want. I can destroy it when I am done with it. It is mine. I can lend this book in read only to you and many others at the same time. No modifications possible. Nobody can write to it, not even me. But…

> the shared reference analogy describes what happens in a computer. Nothing is truly parallel when accessing a shared resource. We need to take turns reading the pages. The hardware does this quickly by means of cached copies.

This exists, but it's uncommon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-ported_RAM , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-ported_video_RAM

Post reply on HN